holding that, to prevail on a slip-and- fall claim in Georgia, a plaintiff must prove, among other things, “(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.” (Emphasis added.)
How later courts described this case
- holding that, to prevail on a slip-and- fall claim in Georgia, a plaintiff must prove, among other things, “(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.” (Emphasis added.)
- holding that “an invitee’s failure to exercise ordinary care is not established as a matter of law by the invitee’s admission that he did not look at the site on which he placed his foot or that he could have seen the hazard had he visually examined the floor before taking the step which led to his downfall” (emphasis added)
- explaining that the distraction doctrine applies to conduct or displays that are “of such a nature that the defendant might have anticipated that it would divert an invitee’s attention”
- criticizing “cases wherein the appellate court ruled that, as long as the invitee’s view was not obstructed, a hazard, no matter its size, was in ‘plain view’ and precluded recovery if the hazard could have been seen had the invitee looked at the ground”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Hunstein, Justice,
concurring.
While I fully join the majority’s opinion, I would prefer to resolve slip and fall cases on the basis of pure comparative negligence. However, I recognize that resolution would require legislative change, which I urge the General Assembly to consider.