Wallace v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
272 Ga. App. 343, 612 S.E.2d 528 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A proprietor demonstrates reasonable care and can defeat a claim of constructive knowledge in a slip-and-fall case by providing evidence that an inspection of the area occurred within a brief period prior to the incident.
Facts:
- Karen Wallace and her husband, James Wallace, were shopping in a Wal-Mart store in Valdosta.
- While walking from the frozen foods section to the produce department, Karen Wallace slipped and fell, suffering a broken hip and a back injury.
- Mrs. Wallace was not looking at the floor before her fall and did not see what caused it.
- After the fall, her husband stated she had stepped on a grape, and a store co-manager photographed a mashed grape in the area.
- Two produce department employees, Heather Rountree and Daren Fleming, stated that they had passed through the area where Mrs. Wallace fell 15 to 20 minutes earlier and did not notice a grape on the floor.
- Mr. Wallace testified that after the fall, he saw an unidentified female employee attempt to cover the grape with her foot.
Procedural Posture:
- Karen and James Wallace sued Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in a state trial court for personal injuries.
- Wal-Mart moved for summary judgment, arguing there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding its liability.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Wal-Mart.
- The Wallaces, as appellants, appealed the trial court's decision to the Court of Appeals of Georgia, with Wal-Mart as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does evidence that store employees passed through an area 15-20 minutes before a customer's slip-and-fall on a grape demonstrate a reasonable inspection procedure sufficient to defeat a claim of constructive knowledge as a matter of law?
Opinions:
Majority - Mikell, Judge
Yes. Evidence that employees inspected the area of the fall within a brief period before the incident is sufficient to show the proprietor exercised reasonable care, thereby negating a claim of constructive knowledge. To recover, the plaintiff must prove the store had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard. With no evidence of actual knowledge, the plaintiff must establish constructive knowledge by showing either (1) an employee was present in the immediate area and could have easily seen the hazard, or (2) the hazard was on the floor for such a time that a reasonable inspection would have discovered it. Here, no employee was in the immediate area at the time of the fall. Furthermore, Wal-Mart defeated the second prong by presenting unrefuted evidence that two employees had been through the specific area 15 to 20 minutes before the fall and saw no grape. Citing precedent, the court held that an inspection within such a 'brief period' is adequate as a matter of law to demonstrate reasonable care, entitling Wal-Mart to summary judgment.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high bar for plaintiffs in premises liability cases, particularly in establishing a proprietor's constructive knowledge of a transient hazard. By affirming that an inspection within 15-20 minutes is legally sufficient, the court provides a clear benchmark for what constitutes a 'reasonable' inspection period. This precedent makes it significantly easier for defendants to obtain summary judgment if they can produce evidence of recent inspections, effectively shifting the burden to the plaintiff to produce specific evidence about how long the hazard was present, which is often impossible.
Unlock the full brief for Wallace v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.