Elsie L. Newman instituted an action to recover damages resulting from her slip and fall in a restaurant owned by Ruby Tuesday, Inc. The trial court granted summary judgmеnt in favor of the restaurant and Newman appeals.
The record reveals that while appellant and her daughter, Delree Friant, wеre being escorted to a table at appellee’s restaurant by a waitress, appellant slipped and fell forward to the floor as she and her daughter followed the waitress past the restaurant’s salad bar. After the fall, no inspection of the soles of apрellant’s shoes was made. However appellant’s daughter testified by deposition that after the fall she noticed a white smear on thе right front shoulder of appellant’s jacket and a grease stain on her own slacks where she had been kneeling on the floor to assist hеr mother. Friant also testified that *828 she felt the floor with her hand, and it felt greasy. From these observations, appellant and Friant concluded thаt appellant’s fall was caused by salad dressing which had spilled from the adjacent salad bar. It is uncontroverted that appelleе did not have actual knowledge of any foreign substance on the floor which may have caused appellant’s fall.
In three relatеd enumerations of error, appellant contends the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of appellee because gеnuine issues of fact remain with regard to whether appellee may be charged with constructive knowledge of the condition at the salad bar. While we agree that testimony regarding appellant’s and her daughter’s smeared and stained clothing may have been sufficient to rаise issues of fact as to whether the alleged foreign slippery substance on the floor caused appellant’s fall, we find that thesе issues do not avail appellant in her quest to show constructive knowledge on appellee’s part and thus prevent summary judgment in favоr of appellee.
Appellant argues that constructive knowledge may be imputed to appellee because sevеral of appellee’s employees (possibly busboys or waitresses) were near the area at the time of the accident. Based on the presence of other employees in the vicinity, or, alternatively, on the presence of the waitress leading appellant and her daughter to their table, “[appellant] seeks to invoke a conclusion that because [appellee’s] employees were present near the scene of the slip and fall [appellee] constructively was aware of the dangеrous situation caused by the slippery substance. The fallacy of the supposition of constructive knowledge is that the condition must in faсt exist and for a sufficient period of time in the immediate vicinity of the proprietor’s agents so that constructive knowledge may be impоsed. [Cit.]”
Kenny v. M & M Supermarket,
Appellant’s reliance on
Caree v. Revco Discount Drug,
Nor is the point appellant raises with regard to the credibility of the testimony of appellee’s manager, Nanсy Jean Tilton, well taken. Even assuming appellee’s evidence was contradictory and construing it most strongly against appellee, Tiltоn’s uncontroverted statement still stands that she personally conducted an inspection of the floor after the fall and found no foreign substаnce. Further, the issue to which any such contradiction would be relevant is not the dispositive one in this case, for, as discussed above, “[e]vеn assuming the inference that she slipped on [salad dressing], there is simply nothing in the evidence to show superior knowledge on the part of the [appellee] of a hazard which could give rise to a duty to remove it or warn customers, so that failure to do so could be found tо constitute a failure to exercise the duty of ordinary care in keeping the premises safe, which befalls the one who is in control of the premises. [Cits.] In this state, the proprietor is not an insurer of its customers’ safety. [Cit.]”
Cook v. Arrington,
Judgment affirmed.