Court Opinion

ID: 9853073
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:41:57.895308+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:40.544682
License: Public Domain

Andrews, Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur with the majority that Kroger was entitled to summary judgment because there was no evidence showing that Kroger had actual or constructive knowledge of the substance on the floor. I write separately to address the manner in which summary judgment applies to Blake’s claim that Kroger had constructive knowledge of the hazard in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lau’s Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491 (405 SE2d 474) (1991).
In a premises liability case, constructive knowledge of the haz*148ardous condition may be imputed to the proprietor in two ways. In the first class of case, constructive knowledge may be imputed to the proprietor when there is evidence that an employee of the proprietor was in the immediate area of the hazard and could have easily seen and removed the hazard. Banks v. Colonial Stores, 117 Ga. App. 581, 584-585 (161 SE2d 366) (1968). There is no evidence that an employee of Kroger was in such a position, so this case involves the second class of constructive knowledge case. The second class of case is premised on the liability which may be imposed on a proprietor for breach of the proprietor’s duty to exercise reasonable care to inspect and keep the premises in a safe condition for invitees. OCGA § 51-3-1. The theory of recovery in this class of case is that the proprietor breached its duty to exercise reasonable care to inspect the premises and discover and remove any hazard such an inspection would have revealed, and that this breach was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury. Banks v. Colonial Stores, supra. Recovery under this theory requires proof of the length of time the hazard existed on the premises because, without such proof, “it would not be possible to determine whether the [proprietor] had been afforded a reasonable time within which to inspect and remove the hazard.” Id. at 585; Hughes v. Hosp. Auth. of Floyd County, 165 Ga. App. 530, 531 (301 SE2d 695) (1983). Accordingly, “[u]nder the second method of proving constructive knowledge, if the evidence shows that a foreign substance has remained on the floor of the premises for a sufficient period of time that it should have been discovered and removed in a reasonable inspection of the premises, then an inference arises from the breach of the duty to inspect the premises and keep it safe that the proprietor has constructive knowledge of the presence of the foreign substance.” Johnson v. Autozone, 219 Ga. App. 390, 392-393 (465 SE2d 463) (1995).
In Daniel v. John Q. Carter Enterprises, 218 Ga. App. 223 (460 SE2d 838) (1995), we addressed this second class of constructive knowledge case in the context of the proprietor’s motion for summary judgment. We cited Winn-Dixie of Greenville v. Ramey, 186 Ga. App. 257 (366 SE2d 785) (1988) to state that: “In seeking summary judgment, the defendant [proprietor] has the initial burden of showing that this theory of recovery is not viable by demonstrating that it exercised reasonable care in inspecting the premises. Ramey, supra at 259. This burden may be carried by evidence of compliance with reasonable inspection procedures. [Cit.] . . . Once a defendant [proprietor] demonstrates a lack of actionable constructive knowledge by compliance with reasonable inspection procedures, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to show how long the foreign substance had been allowed to remain on the floor. Ramey, supra at 259. ... Of course, ‘(i)n the absence of evidence that (the defendant) conducted a reason*149able inspection of the premises that would have discovered the foreign substance that caused the slickness on the floor, (the plaintiff would not be) required to present evidence establishing the length of time that the substance had been allowed to remain on the floor. (Cits.)’ Jackson v. Wal-Mart Stores, 206 Ga. App. 165, 169 (424 SE2d 845) (1992).” Daniel, supra at 224-225. The quoted statement from Jackson cited by Daniel also relied on Ramey as authority.
Ramey, supra, which was decided in 1988 prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Lau’s Corp., supra, found that, because the proprietor failed to produce any evidence that it conducted a reasonable inspection of the premises, the proprietor failed to carry its initial evidentiary burden as the movant for summary judgment to show that the plaintiff’s theory of recovery was not viable. Ramey, supra at 258-259; see also Food Giant v. Cooke, 186 Ga. App. 253, 254-256 (366 SE2d 781) (1988) (decided the same day as Ramey and addressed the same constructive knowledge issue on summary judgment). Both Ramey and Cooke held that, since the proprietors did not meet their initial evidentiary burden on summary judgment, the burden did not shift to the plaintiff in response to summary judgment to produce evidence of how long the hazard had been on the floor. Accordingly, both Ramey and Cooke were based on the conclusion that summary judgment could not be granted to the proprietor because the “[proprietor’s] evidence did not negate the possibility that, under the existing circumstances, its failure to have discovered the presence of the [hazard on the floor] was the result of its failure to exercise reasonable care in inspecting its premises. See Winn-Dixie of Greenville v. Ramey, supra.” Food Giant, supra at 256.
In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Lau’s Corp., supra, the rule stated in Ramey and Cooke as to the proprietor’s evidentiary burden on summary judgment is no longer good law. Lau’s Corp. established the rule on summary judgment that: “A defendant who will not bear the burden of proof at trial need not affirmatively disprove the nonmoving party’s case; instead, the burden on the moving party may be discharged by pointing out by reference to the affidavits, depositions and other documents in the record that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case. If the moving party discharges this burden, the nonmoving party cannot rest on its pleadings, but rather must point to specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue. OCGA § 9-11-56 (e). . . . [A]t summary judgment a party who will not bear the burden of proof at trial need not conclusively prove the opposite of each element of the non-moving party’s case. Rather, that party must demonstrate by reference to evidence in the record that there is an absence of evidence to support at least one essential element of the non-moving party’s case.” Id. at 491, 495 (4).
*150Thus, it is now clear that a defendant proprietor which moves for summary judgment on the basis that it lacked constructive knowledge of the hazard is not required, as Ramey and Cooke held prior to Lau’s Corp., to produce evidence that it conducted a reasonable inspection of the premises in order to shift the burden to the plaintiff to show how long the hazard had existed on the premises. Under Lau’s Corp., the defendant proprietor has no burden whatsoever on summary judgment to produce evidence to negate the plaintiff’s theory of recovery. As this Court recently held in its whole court decision in Johnson v. AutoZone, supra at 394, “[although showing [on a motion for summary judgment] that a foreign substance was not discovered despite compliance with reasonable inspection procedures is one method of demonstrating lack of constructive knowledge [cit.], it is not always necessary for the proprietor to show compliance with reasonable inspection procedures to establish a lack of constructive knowledge. . . . [T]he proprietor may simply point out the absence of any evidence in the record showing that the foreign substance had been on the premises for a period of time sufficient to have been discovered by a reasonable inspection of the premises. Lau’s Corp., supra.” In the absence of such proof, there is no basis for inferring that the proprietor had constructive knowledge of the hazard, and the plaintiff’s claim “tumbles like a house of cards.” Lau’s Corp., supra at 491.
In Daniel, supra, the proprietor produced evidence that it adhered to a schedule of reasonable inspections, so Daniel did not involve application of Ramey and Cooke to a case where the proprietor did not produce evidence to negate the plaintiff’s claim that it had constructive knowledge of the hazard. Nevertheless, the Ramey and Cooke rule re-stated in Daniel was superseded by the rule established by the Supreme Court in Lau’s Corp., which specifically “overrule[d] anything to the contrary.” Id. at 495. Daniel and any other similar case of this Court decided after Lau’s Corp. should be disapproved to the extent it states a rule which could be applied in a manner contrary to the holding of Lau’s Corp.
The dissent erroneously cites Daniel, supra, for the proposition that Lau’s Corp. required Kroger to negate Blake’s claim that Kroger had constructive knowledge of the hazard by presenting evidence that it conducted a reasonable inspection of the premises. In fact, Lau’s Corp. holds to the contrary. Under Lau’s Corp., Kroger had no burden to produce evidence on summary judgment to negate Blake’s claim; rather it was entitled to rely on the absence of evidence in the record to support Blake’s claim. Because there was no evidence as to how long the substance at issue had been on the floor, there was no basis to conclude that Kroger had constructive knowledge of the hazard, and the trial court properly granted Kroger’s motion for sum*151mary judgment.
I am authorized to state that Judge Birdsong joins in this special concurrence.