A Georgia slip and fall case generally requires showing that a hazardous condition caused the fall and that the owner knew or should have known of the hazard but failed to address it. Connecting the owner’s knowledge to the danger is the core of the claim.
A hazard must have caused the fall. The claim begins with a dangerous condition, such as a wet floor or uneven surface, that brought the person down. Without a hazard tied to the fall, there is nothing to attribute to the owner.
The owner’s knowledge is central. The pivotal question is whether the owner had actual knowledge of the hazard or constructive knowledge, meaning it existed long enough that a reasonable inspection would have found it. A puddle sitting for an hour points toward constructive knowledge in a way a spill seconds old does not.
The injured person’s own care matters too. Georgia expects visitors to watch where they step, so a shopper who walked through a coned-off area while looking at a phone may find that inattention weighed against the owner’s fault. The claim accounts for both sides of the encounter.
A hazard that caused the fall, the owner’s actual or constructive knowledge of it, and the injured person’s own attention each shape a slip and fall case. Because constructive knowledge often rests on how long a hazard sat unattended, evidence of timing can be decisive, separating a danger the owner had a fair chance to find from one that appeared moments before the fall.