## Facts

- Geraldine Daniels attended a professional baseball game at Atlanta–Fulton County Stadium as an invitee.
- While exiting at the end of the game, she slipped and fell on a cup or liquid on a stair.
- Daniels did not know who dropped the cup or how long it had been on the stairs.
- Daniels testified no stadium or team employees were in the immediate area when she fell.
- Daniels sued the Atlanta National League Baseball Club, Inc. (Atlanta Braves) for negligent failure to keep the premises safe under OCGA § 51-3-1.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to the Braves for lack of evidence of actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard.

## Issues

1. Whether the Braves had actual or constructive knowledge of the cup or liquid on the stairs sufficient to create premises-liability under OCGA § 51-3-1.
2. Whether, given the mass exit immediately after a game, ordinary care required inspection procedures extensive enough to discover and remove such transient hazards.

## Decision

- The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the Braves.
- Daniels presented no evidence of actual knowledge.
- Daniels failed to show constructive knowledge because she could not establish (a) employee proximity to the hazard or (b) how long the hazard existed.
- The court concluded that requiring real-time inspection of stairs during a crowded postgame exit would be unduly burdensome, if not impossible, and was not required to show ordinary care in this context.

## Legal Principles

- In a Georgia slip-and-fall case, the plaintiff must prove: (1) the proprietor had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard, and (2) the plaintiff lacked knowledge of the hazard despite ordinary care (or was prevented from discovering it due to the proprietor).
- Constructive knowledge may be shown by evidence that: (1) an employee was in the immediate area and could have easily seen the hazard, or (2) the hazard existed long enough that ordinary diligence would have discovered it.
- Constructive knowledge may also be inferred from the absence of a reasonable inspection procedure or a failure to follow the proprietor’s inspection procedure, evaluated in light of the circumstances.
- On summary judgment, a defendant may prevail by showing the record lacks evidence sufficient to create a jury issue on an essential element, including the proprietor’s knowledge of the hazard.

## Conclusion

Because Daniels produced no evidence that the Braves knew or should have known of the transient spill on the stairs during postgame egress, and because ordinary care did not require impracticable real-time inspection under those conditions, summary judgment for the Braves was properly affirmed.


Daniels v. Atlanta Nat’l League Baseball Club, Inc., 240 Ga. App. 751, 524 S.E.2d 801 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999)