Georgia doesn’t apply a single “open and obvious” rule that ends every case. The doctrine is part of the equal knowledge defense: an owner isn’t liable if the visitor knew as much about the hazard as the owner did, or would have known by using ordinary care. It comes out of O.C.G.A. § 51-3-1 and Robinson v. Kroger (1997).
Robinson limited how often judges can decide this. A visitor doesn’t have to keep eyes on the floor continuously. The question of whether the person used ordinary care goes to the jury, except when the evidence is plain, palpable, and undisputed.
How the argument plays out depends on the hazard:
| Hazard | Owner's argument | Plaintiff's reply |
|---|---|---|
| Fixed defect, such as a curb or step | The person passed it earlier; the prior traversal rule presumes knowledge | The defect wasn't visible, or lighting changed |
| Spill or moving object | It was in plain view | It wasn't there on the way in; the color blended with the floor |
| Warning cone in place | The person saw the warning | The warning didn't identify the actual hazard |
| Display drawing the eye | It wasn't enough to distract a careful person | The owner's distraction is why it wasn't seen |
Distraction has its limits. The doctrine covers something the owner put there to attract attention or an emergency that pulled the person’s focus. A phone in the visitor’s own hand is the opposite case, and a jury may assign fault for it under § 51-12-33.
A visible hazard isn’t always a defense to everything. If someone had no reasonable alternative route, or an employee sent them that way, the analysis of ordinary care changes.
General information about Georgia law as of November 2026. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship.