Ramotar v. Kroger Co., 322 Ga. App. 28

Ramotars sued Kroger for personal injuries Ramotar allegedly sustained from slipping on oil in a Kroger store in Loganville, Georgia.
Kroger moved for summary judgment arguing no constructive notice; the trial court granted the motion.
Ramotars contend Kroger had constructive notice due to lack of regular inspections and no stated inspection policy.
Evidence showed a Kroger unit manager inspected aisle five in the morning and an employee stocking oil did not see oil on the floor.
Ramotar slipped at approximately 11:30 a.m. in aisle five near the oil section; seafood counter employees had an unobstructed view of aisle five.
Court held there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding constructive knowledge; the summary judgment was reversed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there constructive notice of the hazard?	Ramotar	Kroger	Issue of fact; summary judgment improper
Did lack of an inspection policy defeat constructive notice as a matter of law?	Ramotar	Kroger	Issue of fact; cannot grant summary judgment

Belk Dept. Store v. Cato, 267 Ga. App. 793 (2004) (asserts standard for summary judgment review and constructive notice principles)
Food Lion v. Walker, 290 Ga. App. 574 (2008) (constructive knowledge and inspection duty in grocery settings)
Davis v. Bruno’s Supermarkets, 263 Ga. App. 147 (2003) (burden on plaintiff to show Kroger’s actual or constructive knowledge)
American Multi-Cinema v. Brown, *30285 Ga. 442 (2009) (constructive notice and inspection procedures assessed)
Shepard v. Winn Dixie Stores, 241 Ga. App. 746 (1999) (reasonableness of inspection procedure in supermarkets)
Burnett v. Ingles Markets, 236 Ga. App. 865 (1999) (summary judgment standard and inspection evidence)