Walmart Stores East L. P. v. Benson.
343 Ga. App. 74
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Catherine Benson slipped and fell inside a Wal-Mart after entering from a rainy day; she landed in a clear liquid and her pants were wet, but she did not see any hazard before falling.
- Store surveillance did not cover the exact spot of the fall but showed Benson entering, passing caution cones and mats, then walking down an aisle and going out of camera view; video shows employee Lena Brand dry-mopping the vestibule and nearby aisles 24–26 minutes before the fall.
- Wal-Mart had written policies requiring employees to watch for and promptly address spills, to dry-mop on rainy days, and to circulate for maintenance; managers testified these procedures were in effect the day of the incident.
- Benson argued Brand’s mopping (including placing an unidentified white material under the mop) may have caused or exacerbated the hazard; Wal‑Mart argued Brand inspected and mopped the area shortly before the fall.
- Trial court denied summary judgment to Wal‑Mart and manager Scott Ferrell; on interlocutory appeal the Court of Appeals reviewed whether Wal‑Mart had superior (actual or constructive) knowledge of the hazard and whether Ferrell had individual liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wal‑Mart had superior knowledge of the hazardous condition | Benson: liquid present; Brand’s mop (with white material) could have been saturated and created/spread the hazard | Wal‑Mart: no actual knowledge; Brand inspected and dry‑mopped the aisle ≤26 minutes before fall, following reasonable procedures | Held: No evidence of superior knowledge; Wal‑Mart entitled to summary judgment |
| Whether Brand’s actions created or contributed to the hazard | Benson: placement of white material under mop and saturated mop suggest she spread water | Wal‑Mart: no proof what material was or that mop was saturated; assertions speculative | Held: Speculation insufficient; no evidence Brand caused hazard |
| Whether Wal‑Mart’s inspection/cleaning procedures were reasonable as a matter of law | Benson: high‑traffic grocery area during rain may require more frequent inspections | Wal‑Mart: routine dry‑mopping and inspections were performed and adequate; entrance was dry when plaintiff entered | Held: Under these facts, procedures were reasonable as a matter of law; burden shifts to Benson to show how long liquid was present, which she failed to do |
| Whether manager Ferrell is individually liable | Benson: argued no individual negligence alleged | Wal‑Mart/Ferrell: Ferrell did not direct or participate in any negligent act | Held: Ferrell entitled to summary judgment; trial court erred in denying it |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Omondi, 294 Ga. 74 (2013) (standard for summary judgment review and construing evidence for nonmovant)
- Robinson v. Kroger Co., 268 Ga. 735 (1997) (elements for invitee slip‑and‑fall: proprietor’s actual or constructive knowledge and plaintiff’s lack of knowledge)
- Adamchick v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc., 281 Ga. App. 677 (2006) (liability rests on proprietor’s superior knowledge of danger unknown to invitee)
- Blocker v. Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc., 287 Ga. App. 588 (2007) (constructive knowledge shown by employee’s opportunity to discover hazard or by hazard’s duration)
- Food Lion, LLC v. Walker, 290 Ga. App. 574 (2008) (reasonableness of inspection frequency depends on store nature, traffic, and foreseeable hazards)
- Winn‑Dixie Atlanta v. Bianco, 204 Ga. App. 292 (1992) (mopping/inspection 20–30 minutes before fall can constitute reasonable care)
- Hopkins v. Kmart Corp., 232 Ga. App. 515 (1998) (inspections every 30 minutes and recent check can meet proprietor’s burden)