Dоreatha Haskins sued Piggly Wiggly Southern, Inc. d/b/a Piggly Wiggly Food Store and Bruno’s Inc. (“Piggly Wiggly”) to recover for persоnal injuries allegedly sustained in an incident occurring in a Piggly Wiggly store. Enumerating two errors, Haskins appeals the summary judgment awarded to Piggly Wiggly.
The evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to Haskins, the non-movant, showed that nearly immediately after entering a Piggly Wiggly store, as Haskins was proceeding between two registers, she suddenly slipped on a small puddle of water and twisted her right ankle. Haskins was able to halt her fall by grabbing a candy rack. Haskins admitted that she was very familiar with this particular store and had shopped there on numerous occasions. Haskins testified thаt had she been looking down at the floor when she slipped she would not have been able to see the water. She testified that the water could not be seen from a standing positiоn and that she had to “get down” to see it.
Leroy Davis, an assistant manager, testified that he did not witness the incident and did not learn about it until the next day. According to Davis, who was familiar with store cleaning procedures, a cleaning crew cleaned the floors each night. Davis testified that *351 although Piggly Wiggly had no specific set times for checking the floors, Piggly Wiggly had a store poliсy requiring that the management and employees maintain a continuous lookout for spills, so that corrective action could be taken. According to Davis, managers cheсked the store for hazards periodically during the day.
Piggly Wiggly moved for summary judgment contending that Haskins failed to show that it had superior knowledge of the allegedly hazardous condition. The trial сourt granted summary judgment to Piggly Wiggly. Held:
Haskins contends that genuine issues of material fact precluded summаry judgment. We disagree. The mere showing of the occurrence of an injury does not creаte a presumption of negligence. Rather the true ground of liability is the owner or occupier’s superior knowledge of the hazard and the danger therefrom.
Cook v. Home Depot,
Thus, to avert summary judgment, Haskins had to prеsent sufficient evidence to satisfy both knowledge requirements set forth in
Robinson,
supra. This she failed to do. It is undisputed that Haskins did not offer any evidence that Piggly Wiggly had actual knowledge of the allegеd hazard. Nor did Haskins sustain her burden of showing that Piggly Wiggly had constructive knowledge of the foreign substancе. See
Alterman Foods,
Constructive knowledge of a foreign substance may be shown by evidence that the foreign substance had been on the floor for a sufficient period of time that in the exerсise of ordinary care, the defendant should have noticed and removed the hazard оr by evidence that the defendant had an employee in the immediate area of the hazard who could have easily seen and removed the hazard before the plaintiff’s fall.
Jester v. Ingles Market,
In this case, Haskins did not establish the length of time the water had been on the floor and, in fact, admitted that she had no idea how long it had been there. Haskins failed to offer any evidencе even suggesting that the foreign substance was present for a sufficient time for knowledge of its рresence to be imputed to Piggly Wiggly.
Moore v. Kroger Co.,
Because Haskins failed to sustain her evidentiary burden of showing that Piggly Wiggly had actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged hazard and that such knowledge exceeded hers, Piggly Wiggly was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
Johnson v. Autozone,
Judgment affirmed.