Current Law

In 2009, American Multi-Cinema, Inc. et al. v. Brown et al., the Supreme Court reaffirmed Robinson. Taking note of Robinson’s admonition that “routine” issues of premises liability are not subject to summary adjudication unless plain, palpable, and undisputed evidenced shows otherwise,” the Court affirmed the lower court’s finding that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the defendant. 285 Ga. 442, 445, 448.

The decision whether to recognize the [invitees] theory of recovery as valid under Georgia premises liability law is precisely the type of legal policy judgment we instructed in Robinson must be left to a jury to decide in light of all the attendant circumstances. It is one of the ‘routine’ issues of premises liability—’the negligence of the defendant’—that is “generally not susceptible of summary adjudication” unless the “plain, palpable, and undisputed” evidence requires otherwise. (citations omitted). At 446.

A hazard has been defined as “[a] danger or risk lurking in a situation which by chance or fortuity develops into an active agency of harm.” Gresham v. Bell’s Food Mkt, 244 Ga. App. 240, 241 (2000) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary). Either actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard by a defendant will satisfy the first prong. Robinson, at 748. Here, there is both. Defendant admits traversing the stairway, including on the date in question. Defendant therefore has actual knowledge of the alleged hazard.

In analyzing an injured party’s knowledge of a hazard, “Robinson reminded all courts that the plaintiff’s lack of ordinary care for personal safety is generally not susceptible of summary adjudication and that only when the evidence is plain, palpable, and undisputed is summary judgment authorized.” Mac Intern.-Savannah Hotel, Inc. v. Hallman, 265 Ga. App. 727 (2004) (referencing Robinson at 748).

This quick three-part series on Georgia slip and fall law is just the tip of the iceberg. Please call us to discuss your specific situation.

Robinson v. Kroger: Surviving Summary Judgment

Following up on our previous blog, the Georgia Supreme Court in 1997 changed the slip and fall landscape. The Court ruled that “an [injured party’s] failure to exercise ordinary care for personal safety is not established as a matter of law by the [injured party’s] admission that she did not look at the site on which she subsequently placed her foot”).

After Robinson, an injured party need only prove (1) that the landowner had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard, and (2) that the injured party lacked knowledge of the hazard despite the exercise of ordinary care due to actions or conditions within the control of the owner.

Robinson is important because it shifts the focus from the injured party’s conduct to the landowner’s conduct. After Robinson, if the injured party shows the landowner knew about the hazard, then the burden shifts to the landowner to show the injury was caused by the injured party’s negligence (intentional disregard of a known risk or failure to exercise ordinary care for one’s personal safety). This makes it much easier for injured parties to survive summary judgment and get their cases in front of a jury.

Robinson remains good law today.

Previous Georgia Law

Under Georgia law, a landowner has a nondelegable statutory duty to keep its premises and approaches safe for a customer or guest (lawyers refer to such persons as “invitees”). OCGA § 51-3-1. Georgia law states: “Where an owner or occupier of land, by express or implied invitation, induces or leads others to come upon his premises for any lawful purpose, he is liable in damages to such persons for injuries caused by his failure to exercise ordinary care in keeping the premises and approaches safe.”

Analysis of Georgia premises liability law begins with Alterman Foods v. Ligon, 240 Ga. 620 (1980). Alterman Foods established a two-prong test. To recover, injured parties had to show (1) the landowner had actual or constructive knowledge of hazard, and (2) the injured party was without knowledge of the hazard (or for some reason attributable to landowner was prevented from discovering the hazard). After Alterman and for the next 17 years, the conduct of the injured party was the focus. Few slip and fall cases injury cases survived summary judgment. A summary judgment is when a court rules as a matter of law for the landowner; this means the judge and not a jury decides the case.

Recognizing that the pendulum had swung too far in favor of landowners, the Georgia Supreme Court, in Robinson v. Kroger, found that “routine issues of premises liability, i.e., negligence, and the plaintiff’s lack of ordinary care for personal safety[,] are generally not susceptible of summary adjudication.” 268 Ga. 735,748 (1997) (“an invitee’s failure to exercise ordinary care for personal safety is not established as a matter of law by the invitee’s admission that she did not look at the site on which she subsequently placed her foot”).

In part two, we will discuss current current slip and fall law in Georgia.