Court Opinion

ID: 9584694
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:51:45.087422+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:13:31.638708
License: Public Domain

Andrews, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
KMart Corporation was entitled to a directed verdict because there was an absence of evidence from which the jury could have reasonably concluded that KMart had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard which caused Jackson to slip and suffer an injury.
There is no evidence in the record which could support a reasonable inference that KMart had actual knowledge of the spilled liquid before Jackson stepped in it. The only direct evidence on this issue was testimony from the KMart store manager that he was not aware of the spill until he saw Jackson standing in an aisle of the store next to a large, obviously visible spill of brightly colored liquid and asked her what happened. The manager recalled that the spill was about two feet long and two feet wide, while Jackson remembered that the spill was a bright yellow liquid covering the entire width of the aisle. The manager testified that, as part of KMart’s policy of keeping the premises clean and safe, he walked the store on a constant basis over the course of his shift, and that he discovered Jackson standing next to the spill while he was patrolling the store. The manager further testified that he had walked that vicinity of the store about 15 minutes prior to discovering the spill and Jackson standing next to it. Jackson testified that, when she saw the manager approach her, he was accompanied by a stock boy. The manager testified that there was no stock boy with him when he first discovered the spill. According to Jackson, neither the manager nor the stock boy had any cleaning equipment with them when they approached her. It was undisputed that a KMart stock boy later cleaned up the spill after it was discovered.
Based on this evidence, the majority finds that the jury could have reasonably concluded the manager was lying about the presence of the stock boy with him and then inferred that the lie was to conceal the fact that the manager was walking to the spill with the stock boy to direct the stock boy to clean up the spill — thus showing that KMart had prior actual knowledge of the spill. Majority op. p. 177. To draw these inferences from the bare fact that Jackson saw a stock boy with the manager is pure speculation. At best this evidence would support the mere possibility that KMart had prior actual knowledge of the spill. In fact, when Jackson’s counsel asked Jackson *180at trial what she surmised the manager and the stock boy knew about the spill, the trial judge sustained defense counsel’s objection that the question called for speculation. A reasonable inference sufficient to create a triable issue of fact cannot be based on mere possibility, conjecture, or speculation. Pafford v. Biomet, 264 Ga. 540, 544 (448 SE2d 347) (1994); Butler v. Huckabee, 209 Ga. App. 761, 762 (434 SE2d 576) (1993).
Citing Straughter v. J H. Harvey Co., 232 Ga. App. 29, 30 (500 SE2d 353) (1998), the majority further concludes that KMart’s failure to identify the stock boy permits the jury to reasonably infer that the stock boy, and thus KMart, had prior actual knowledge of the spill. Majority op. p. 177. This conclusion is based on Straughter’s application of the rebuttable presumption created in OCGA § 24-4-22. Id. at 30-31. Section 24-4-22 provides that:
If a party has evidence in his power and within his reach by which he may repel a claim or charge against him but omits to produce it, or if he has more certain and satisfactory evidence in his power but relies on that which is of a weaker and inferior nature, a presumption arises that the charge or claim against him is well founded; but this presumption may be rebutted.
By creating an adverse presumption of fact, this Code section imposes a penalty on a party for withholding evidence within the party’s power to produce and for relying on evidence of a weaker nature. Fields v. Yellow Cab Co. &c., 80 Ga. App. 569, 571 (56 SE2d 845) (1949); Speagle v. Nationwide &c. Ins. Co., 138 Ga. App. 384, 387 (226 SE2d 459) (1976). Without saying so explicitly, the majority concludes that it was within the power and control of KMart to identify and produce the stock boy and that its failure to do so gives rise to an adverse presumption of fact under OCGA § 24-4-22.This is a misapplication of the rule set forth in OCGA § 24-4-22.
There is absolutely no evidence that KMart knew of and withheld the identity of the stock boy. The manager testified that a stock boy cleaned up the spill after it was discovered, but that he could not recall his name. The record shows that Jackson’s injury occurred in 1991, that she did not file suit until 1996,4 and that the manager, who had long since moved on to another store, was testifying from memory at a trial in 1998. The record also shows, that, at Jackson’s request, KMart produced the names of all its employees working at the store during the period when the accident occurred.
*181In Cotton States Fertilizer Co. v. Childs, 179 Ga. 23, 31 (174 SE 708) (1934), the Supreme Court cautioned that the principle set forth in OCGA § 24-4-22 applies only in cases where it is shown that a party has withheld evidence within the party’s power and control and held that an instruction on OCGA § 24-4-22 “can be given in charge only in exceptional cases, and the greatest caution must be exercised in its application.” Jackson did not request a jury charge, and none was given by the trial court on the adverse presumption arising from OCGA § 24-4-22. The sua sponte invocation of this adverse presumption by the majority is a strained attempt to find a factual issue on actual knowledge by attempting to give substance to an inference based on pure possibility, speculation, or conjecture.
I also disagree with the majority’s conclusion that there was evidence in the record sufficient to show that KMart had constructive knowledge of the spill.
Constructive knowledge can be shown in either of two ways: (i) by presenting evidence that an employee of the defendant was in the immediate area of the dangerous condition and could have easily seen the substance and removed the hazard; or (ii) by presenting evidence that the substance was on the floor for such a time that (a) it would have been discovered had the proprietor exercised reasonable care in inspecting the premises and (b) upon being discovered, the substance would have been cleaned up had the proprietor exercised reasonable care in cleaning the premises.
Lovins v. Kroger Co., 236 Ga. App. 585, 586 (1) (b) (512 SE2d 2) (1999). There was no evidence that an employee of KMart was in the immediate area of the hazard, so the issue as to constructive knowledge related to the second method of proof.
Under the second method of proving constructive knowledge, where the proprietor shows that it had a reasonable inspection procedure that was followed on the day of the injury, this is sufficient to show that reasonable care was exercised to keep the premises safe, and thus no constructive knowledge can be charged to the proprietor. Morris v. Ryan’s Family Steak Houses, 206 Ga. App. 369 (425 SE2d 362) (1992); Drake v. Kroger Co., 213 Ga. App. 72, 73 (443 SE2d 698) (1994). At the trial, the manager was specifically asked, “[H]ow did y’all go about making sure that the premises were clean and safe, the floors were safe for your customers?” The manager responded that, in addition to associates who were responsible for specific parts of the store, as manager he walked the entire store on a constant basis over the course of his shift, and that he had walked the vicinity of the store where Jackson was injured about 15 minutes prior to returning *182to the area and discovering the spill with Jackson standing next to it. This testimony plainly shows that an inspection procedure for keeping the floors safe was in place and that the manager had conducted an inspection of the area where the spill occurred about 15 minutes before he later discovered the spill in the same area. In responding to the question about how the floor was inspected, it was not necessary, as the majority holds, that the manager specifically say he was in the aisle or that he inspected the floor. Common sense and a fair reading of plain English show that the manager said he inspected the floor area where the spill occurred without finding anything about 15 minutes before the accident. This testimony established as a matter of law that KMart conducted a reasonable inspection of the floor area and therefore had no constructive knowledge of the spill. Id.
Moreover, even if KMart had produced no evidence of adherence to reasonable inspection procedures on the day of the accident, the absence of any evidence showing how long the spill had been on the floor rendered it impossible for a jury to reasonably conclude that the spill had been on the floor long enough to havé been discovered by a reasonable inspection. If the spill had not been on the floor long enough to have been discovered by a reasonable inspection, then any failure by KMart to conduct a reasonable inspection could not be the cause of the accident.
On the issue of the fact of causation, as on other issues essential to the cause of action for negligence, the plaintiff, in general, has the burden of proof. The plaintiff must introduce evidence which affords a reasonable basis for the conclusion that it is more likely than not that the conduct of the defendant was a cause in fact of the result. A mere possibility of such causation is not enough; and when the matter remains one of pure speculation or conjecture, or the probabilities are at best evenly balanced, it becomes the duty of the court to direct a verdict for the defendant.
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Nelson v. Polk County Historical Society, 216 Ga. App. 756, 757 (2) (456 SE2d 93) (1995). As the Supreme Court held in Lau’s Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491, 495 (405 SE2d 474) (1991), in the context of summary judgment, a defendant who does not carry the burden of proof at trial is not required to produce evidence that its alleged negligence was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury. Rather, the absence of such evidence is sufficient to entitle the defendant to a favorable verdict. Id. Without any evidence as to how long the spill had been on the floor, it was a matter of pure speculation or conjecture for the jury to conclude that the spill had been there long enough so that the proximate cause of *183the accident was KMart’s failure to discover and remove the spill by conducting a reasonable inspection. It follows that the trial court erred by refusing to direct a verdict in favor of KMart.
Decided July 16, 1999
Alston & Bird, James C. Grant, Jeffrey J. Swart, for appellant.
Victor Hawk, for appellees.

 No issue was raised on appeal as to application of the two-year statute of limitation in OCGA § 9-3-33, and the record is also silent on this issue.