Court Opinion

ID: 9780744
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 02:44:27.550127+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:34:12.428038
License: Public Domain

MCFADDEN, Judge,
concurring fully and specially.
I concur fully in the majority opinion. I write separately to suggest that the concurrence dubitante is better addressed to our General Assembly than to our Supreme Court.
The duty at issue here is founded not only on general principles of tort law, but primarily on a statute that dates back to the Code of 1895.
Where an owner or occupier of land, by express or implied invitation, induces or leads others to come upon his premises for any lawful purpose, he is liable in damages to such persons for injuries caused by his failure to exercise ordi*763nary care in keeping the premises and approaches safe.
OCGA § 51-3-1. The duty created by that statute “includes inspecting the premises to discover possible dangerous conditions of which the owner/occupier does not have actual knowledge, and taking reasonable precautions to protect invitees from dangers foreseeable from the arrangement or use of the premises.” (Citations omitted.) Robinson v. Kroger Co., 268 Ga. 735, 740 (1) (493 SE2d 403) (1997).
Here the evidence would authorize a factfinder to conclude that the hotel neglected its duty to perform reasonable inspections. And a factfinder would be authorized to find that it is because of that neglect that there is no evidence about how long the substance on which the plaintiff fell had been on the floor. The concurrence dubitante would hold that the plaintiffs claim is defeated as a matter of law by that lack of evidence, overturning the line of cases holding that constructive knowledge may be inferred from a land owner or occupier’s failure to follow a reasonable inspection procedure. See Gibson v. Halpern Enterprises, 288 Ga. App. 790, 791-792 (655 SE2d 624) (2007). While defensible under general principles of law, such a holding would frustrate the legislative intent expressed in OCGA § 51-3-1. Such a holding would encourage land owners and occupiers to neglect the duties imposed upon them by the statute and thereby increase the danger to the public which the statute seeks to reduce.