What Must You Prove in a Georgia Slip-and-Fall Case?

Two things, under Robinson v. Kroger Co. (1997): “(1) that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard; and (2) that the plaintiff lacked knowledge of the hazard despite the exercise of ordinary care due to actions or conditions within the control of the owner/occupier”. Robinson also changed how the second part is proved: the injured person does not have to disprove their own carelessness until the owner first produces evidence of it.

Where the duty comes from

O.C.G.A. § 51-3-1 makes an owner or occupier who “induces or leads others to come upon his premises for any lawful purpose” liable for injuries “caused by his failure to exercise ordinary care in keeping the premises and approaches safe”. Robinson called the owner’s “superior knowledge of the hazard encountered by the plaintiff” the “fundamental basis” for that liability. A fall alone does not establish it.

Part one: what the owner knew or should have known

Actual knowledge means the owner or its staff knew about the spill, defect, or obstruction. Constructive knowledge means the owner should have known, and it turns on facts like these: how long the hazard was there, whether employees were nearby, and what the owner’s inspection and cleaning practice was and whether it was followed that day. Store incident reports, cleaning logs, and video footage are the evidence that answers those questions.

Part two: why the injured person did not see it

Robinson rejected a line of decisions that treated a failure to look at the floor as carelessness by itself. The Court said that requiring an invitee to “visually inspect each footfall” would demand that visitors “look continuously at the floor for defects, a task an invitee is not required to perform”, because an invitee “is entitled to assume that the owner/occupier has exercised reasonable care to make the premises safe”. The question is “whether, taking into account all the circumstances existing at the time and place of the fall, the invitee exercised the prudence the ordinarily careful person would use in a like situation”.

Robinson also sets the order of proof. The plaintiff’s evidence on the second part “is not shouldered until the defendant establishes negligence on the part of the plaintiff”, meaning that the plaintiff “intentionally and unreasonably exposed self to a hazard of which the plaintiff knew or, in the exercise of ordinary care, should have known”.

When a distraction explains not looking

An injured person presents “some evidence” of reasonable care by explaining that “something in the control of the owner/occupier and of such a nature that the owner/occupier knew or should have known of its distractive quality” kept them from looking at the hazard. A distraction the visitor created does not count. Robinson’s examples, and the narrow treatment of store displays, are covered in the open and obvious defense.

When the jury decides, and when the court does

Robinson held that these questions should be decided by the jury unless the evidence “plainly, palpably, and indisputably” points one way. The Supreme Court has also decided cases as a matter of law when the injured person’s knowledge was equal to the owner’s; in The Landings Association, Inc. v. Williams (2012), it reversed a ruling that let a fatal alligator-attack case go to trial, because the woman who was killed knew alligators lived in the community’s lagoons. The owner-knowledge comparison is the subject of the superior knowledge doctrine.

Who counts as an invitee

The two-part test is the invitee standard. A social guest (licensee) or a trespasser is owed less, and the classification can decide the case; see invitee, licensee, or trespasser.

Evidence to gather after a fall

1. Photographs of the hazard, the lighting, and the surrounding area, taken before it is cleaned up.
2. Names of employees who were nearby, and of witnesses.
3. The incident report, and a request that the business preserve surveillance video.
4. A description of anything that drew attention away from the floor, and who controlled it.
5. Shoes and clothing worn at the time.

A request to preserve video matters because footage can be overwritten; the rules on lost evidence are explained in spoliation of evidence in Georgia.

Sources

• O.C.G.A. § 51-3-1.
• Robinson v. Kroger Co., 268 Ga. 735 (1997)
• The Landings Association, Inc. v. Williams, 291 Ga. 397 (2012)

General information about Georgia law as of October 2026. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.