Legal Question in Personal Injury in Georgia

Slip & Fall Law in Georgia

Many customers are under the impression that if they slip and fall in a business, the business owner is automatically responsible for any medical expenses incurred in connection with the fall, simply because the fall occurred on the business property.

Georgia courts follow the �superior knowledge� rule when determining whether a premises owner is responsible for someone slipping and falling on a foreign substance (water, banana peel, etc.) while on the business property. Usually, in order for a person who falls to prevail on such a claim, the person has to show that: 1) the store owner knew or should have known about the substance being on the floor before the person fell and 2) the person who fell could not have discovered the substance herself through the exercise of ordinary care.

This rule is very protective of the business owner and makes it extremely difficult for the customer to prevail. The customer rarely has a viable claim which will survive in court because of the �catch-22� within which the law places the customer. If the customer says that the substance on the floor was so obvious that the store owner should have seen it, the customer has then invited the argument that if it was so obvious, the customer should have seen it as well. On the other hand, if the customer says that the substance was so hidden or camouflaged that the customer couldn�t have possibly seen it before slipping on it, then the customer has given the owner a great argument that if it was so hidden, there was no way for the store owner to have known about it in time to clean it up before the customer fell.

Formerly, most such cases were simply dismissed by the courts, without ever getting to a jury, if the customer failed the litmus question on the second prong of the rule. If the customer admitted that she could have seen the substance had she been looking down at the floor, the case was dismissed. The courts reasoned that a person was not being as careful as she could have been if she wasn�t looking down at the floor at all times. A few years ago, the Georgia Court of Appeals issued a ruling saying that the law in Georgia would no longer require a person to be constantly looking at the floor, recognizing the reality that most people are looking at merchandise while in a store. For a time after that, more slip and fall cases were allowed to proceed on to a jury, instead of simply being dismissed by the court.

Recently however, a new trend has emerged where the courts are again dismissing most slip and fall cases before they ever reach a jury, this time on the first prong of the rule. With the new litmus question, if a customer states that there was no way she could have seen the substance before she slipped in it, then the case is dismissed on the theory that there is no way the customer would be able to prove to a jury that the store owner should have seen it; hence, there is reason for the case to go to a jury.