Kroger Co. v. Schoenhoff
324 Ga. App. 619
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Melanie Schoenhoff slipped in a puddle of clear liquid (water) in the floral area of a Kroger store and sued Kroger for negligence; husband claimed loss of consortium.
- Jury awarded Melanie $2,640,000 and husband $150,000; Kroger appealed arguing directed verdict was proper.
- No evidence Kroger had actual knowledge; plaintiffs relied on constructive-knowledge theories (employee proximity or lapse in inspection).
- Kroger’s policy required periodic inspections (about hourly/30-minute sweeps), but Kroger could not prove any inspections occurred that day.
- Evidence at trial: prior occasional water in floral area; mats sometimes used there but none shown that day; fall occurred on a busy Saturday evening after a full shopping day.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether directed verdict was required because plaintiffs failed to show constructive knowledge of the spill | Schoenhoff argued Kroger had constructive knowledge: (a) routine spills in floral area and (b) Kroger failed to perform required inspections that day | Kroger argued no evidence showed (1) an employee in immediate area could have seen/removed the spill, or (2) how long the puddle had been on the floor | Affirmed trial court: sufficient circumstantial evidence to let jury infer constructive knowledge and deny directed verdict |
| Whether plaintiffs had to prove how long the liquid was on the floor when Kroger did not prove inspections were performed | Plaintiff relied on Straughter: when defendant cannot prove inspections were followed, plaintiff need not prove duration of spill | Kroger argued plaintiff bore burden to prove spill duration to show it existed long enough to impute constructive knowledge | Court: plaintiffs need not prove exact duration where evidence permits inference the spill was discoverable by reasonable inspection and defendant failed to show inspections were performed |
| Whether an employee was in the immediate vicinity and could have easily seen and removed the hazard | Plaintiff pointed to employees working nearby and recurring wetness in floral area | Kroger stressed testimony that the puddle was hard to see and employees were ~25 feet away assisting self-checkout | Court did not decide this theory; instead held other circumstantial evidence supported constructive-knowledge inference (inspection lapse + predictable dripping + no mats) |
Key Cases Cited
- Kroger Co. v. Strickland, 248 Ga. App. 613 (explains deference to jury and review standard on directed verdict)
- American Multi-Cinema, Inc. v. Brown, 285 Ga. 442 (premises-liability elements: actual/constructive knowledge and plaintiff’s lack of knowledge)
- Benefield v. Tominich, 308 Ga. App. 605 (constructive knowledge shown by employee proximity or lapse in inspections)
- Kroger Co. v. Brooks, 231 Ga. App. 650 (jury issue where evidence permits inference a reasonable inspection would have discovered hazard)
- Straughter v. J. H. Harvey Co., 232 Ga. App. 29 (held at summary judgment that plaintiff need not show duration when defendant cannot prove inspections were followed)
- Alterman Foods v. Ligon, 246 Ga. 620 (to prove failure-to-inspect claim plaintiff must show foreign substance existed long enough to impute knowledge)