Youngblood v. All American Quality Foods, Inc.
338 Ga. App. 817
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Saundra Youngblood slipped in a puddle of clear liquid in aisle 10 (beverage aisle) of Food Depot and was injured; she did not see the liquid before falling.
- Evidence suggested the liquid may have come from a broken water bottle, but there was no evidence how long the liquid had been on the floor or how the bottle broke.
- A customer informed a checkout cashier about the spill while Youngblood was in the store; the cashier told a bagger, who immediately retrieved a mop, bucket, and wet-floor sign and went to aisle 10.
- When the bagger arrived, Youngblood was already on the floor; she confirmed she slipped before any store employee reached the spill but could not say how long she had been on the floor.
- Store records showed an inspection of aisle 10 about 20 minutes before the fall that found no spill; there was no evidence of employees being in the immediate area of the spill before the fall or of recurring spill problems at the store.
- Food Depot moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted it, finding no constructive knowledge and, even if actual notice occurred before the fall, that the store exercised ordinary care in responding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether owner had constructive knowledge of the hazard | Youngblood argued the store should be chargeable with constructive knowledge of the spill | Food Depot argued no employee was in the immediate area and inspections showed no prior hazard | No constructive knowledge; inspection 20 minutes earlier and lack of nearby employees foreclose constructive knowledge as a matter of law |
| Whether owner had actual knowledge before the fall and failed to act reasonably | Youngblood argued notice was given before she fell and employees failed to follow spill-response training | Food Depot argued cashier notified bagger who promptly retrieved cleaning supplies and went to the spill | Even assuming notice occurred before the fall, Food Depot acted within a reasonable time and exercised ordinary care; summary judgment for defendant |
| Whether failure to follow internal spill procedure creates triable issue | Youngblood pointed to training requiring one employee to stand over spill while another fetches supplies | Food Depot argued private training cannot raise the standard above ordinary care required by law | Court held deviation from internal policy (even if proven) does not raise the legal standard above ordinary care and did not create a triable issue |
| Whether any unusual condition required continuous patrols/heightened inspection | Youngblood implied more frequent checks were needed given risk | Food Depot showed no history of recurring spills or other incidents to indicate unusual danger | No unusually dangerous condition; no duty to continuously patrol; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- American Multi-Cinema, Inc. v. Brown, 285 Ga. 442 (2009) (elements required to recover under OCGA § 51-3-1)
- Robinson v. Kroger, 268 Ga. 735 (1997) (premises owner’s superior knowledge and ordinary-care duties)
- Alterman Foods, Inc. v. Ligon, 246 Ga. 620 (1979) (constructive knowledge standards and inspection duty)
- Banks v. Colonial Stores, Inc., 117 Ga. App. 581 (1968) (employees in immediate area theory of constructive knowledge)
- Matthews v. The Varsity, Inc., 248 Ga. App. 512 (2001) (inspection shortly before incident can establish exercise of ordinary care)
- Lau’s Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491 (1991) (when ordinary care questions may be decided as matter of law)
- Pickering Corp. v. Goodwin, 243 Ga. App. 831 (2000) (owner allowed reasonable time after notice to correct hazard)