## Facts

- Karen and James Wallace shopped at a Wal-Mart in Valdosta, Georgia.
- While walking from the frozen foods area toward produce, Karen Wallace slipped and fell, breaking her hip and injuring her back.
- Karen Wallace did not see anything on the floor before she fell and was not looking at the floor as she walked.
- A co-manager, Johnny Stephens, arrived after the fall; he testified James Wallace said Karen stepped on a grape, and Stephens recalled seeing and photographing a mashed grape.
- Produce employees told Stephens they had been through the area approximately 15–20 minutes before the fall and had not seen a grape on the floor.
- Karen Wallace later heard someone say she slipped on a grape but did not personally see it and did not know how long it had been on the floor.
- James Wallace testified that after the fall he saw a female employee place her foot over a grape on the floor; the employee denied doing so and testified she came to assist after hearing a call for help.
- Wal-Mart’s evidence indicated produce employees were trained to continuously watch for and clean hazards and to perform “zone-defense” inspections about every hour.

## Issues

1. Whether Wal-Mart had actual or constructive knowledge of the grape on the floor before the fall.
2. Whether Wal-Mart’s inspection procedures were unreasonable such that constructive knowledge could be imputed despite no evidence of how long the grape was present.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Georgia affirmed summary judgment for Wal-Mart.
- The record did not support a finding of actual knowledge because the evidence of the grape arose after the fall.
- The record did not support constructive knowledge based on employee presence because the evidence did not show an employee was in the immediate area with an opportunity to discover and remove the grape before the fall.
- The record did not support constructive knowledge based on time/inspection procedures because employees had checked the area 15–20 minutes earlier and there was no evidence of how long the grape had been on the floor.

## Legal Principles

- In a Georgia slip-and-fall action, a plaintiff must prove (1) the proprietor’s actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard and (2) the plaintiff’s lack of knowledge of the hazard despite ordinary care.
- Constructive knowledge may be shown by evidence that (a) an employee was in the immediate vicinity and could have discovered and removed the hazard, or (b) the hazard existed long enough that reasonable inspections should have discovered it.
- A defendant may obtain summary judgment by showing an absence of evidence creating a jury issue on an essential element, including the proprietor’s knowledge of the hazard.
- Evidence of an inspection within a short interval (here, roughly 15–20 minutes) coupled with ongoing monitoring can establish reasonable inspection procedures as a matter of law when the plaintiff cannot show the hazard’s duration.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed summary judgment because the plaintiffs failed to produce evidence from which a jury could find that Wal-Mart had actual knowledge of the grape or constructive knowledge through employee proximity or unreasonable inspection practices, particularly given the recent inspection and the absence of proof about how long the grape was on the floor.


Wallace v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 272 Ga. App. 343, 612 S.E.2d 528 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005)