A Georgia slip and fall plaintiff must prove two things under Robinson v. Kroger (1997): the owner had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard, and the plaintiff, despite ordinary care, did not know of it or was prevented from discovering it by something the owner did. Injury and causation complete the claim.
The duty comes from O.C.G.A. § 51-3-1, and it applies to invitees, such as customers. Constructive knowledge can be shown in two ways:
- An employee was nearby and could easily have seen and removed the hazard.
- The hazard had been there long enough that a reasonable inspection would have found it.
An owner may answer the second with an inspection record. A plaintiff then asks whether the walk-through really happened, and whether video matches the log.
Identifying the hazard is its own requirement. Someone who can only say “I fell” and cannot say what caused it may lose before trial, because a jury can’t be asked to guess.
The plaintiff’s own conduct is argued throughout. Robinson held that routine issues, such as a customer’s failure to look down, are for a jury except in plain and undisputed cases. Under O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33(g), a plaintiff who is 50 percent or more responsible recovers nothing, and a smaller share reduces the award.
What can help: the name of the employee who responded, a photo of the floor showing what was on it, shoes kept unwashed, and a written request that the store preserve video. The claim generally must be filed within two years, § 9-3-33.
General information about Georgia law as of November 2026. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship.