Facts
In 2018, Johnson was a regular customer at LT Energy’s store. LT Energy had a mat next to the store’s exterior door. The mat was not secured to the floor. As part of the store’s closing routine, each evening a store employee would pick up the mat, shake it out, and place the mat back down on the floor next to the door. On March 11, 2018, Johnson attempted to enter the store. Johnson was with a companion. As he was walking into the store, he was looking back at his companion. When he entered the store, the mat was not pushed against the door and Johnson's foot went under the mat, causing him to fall and injure himself.
After suit was filed, LT Energy moved for summary judgment, arguing that Johnson had not presented evidence that the mat was hazardous condition, LT Energy did not have knowledge of any hazard, Johnson had not exercised ordinary care, and the prior traversal rule barred Johnson’s claims. The trial court granted summary judgment to LT Energy and Johnson appealed.
Issues & Holdings
The Court held as follows on these issues in the case:
- Is there evidence that creates an issue of material fact as to whether the mat was a hazardous condition? Yes.
- Did LT Energy have actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard? Yes.
- Is there evidence that creates an issue of material fact as to whether Johnson exercised ordinary care for his own safety? Yes.
Reasoning
Mat as a Hazardous Condition
The first question for a trip and fall case is whether there was a hazardous condition on the premises. Brixmor New Chastain Corners SC v. James, 367 Ga. App. 235, 237 (2023). Examining the evidence, the Court found that there were facts that created a genuine issue of fact as to whether the mat was hazardous. For example, surveillance footage showed at the time of the fall, the mat was not pushed against the door and the video showed the mat flipping up as Johnson’s foot goes beneath it. Under Benefield v. Tominich, floor mats that fold, bunch, roll, or shift periodically can constitute hazards. 308 Ga. App. 605, 608 (2011). Additionally, the Court noted that LT Energy did not dispute that Johnson tripped on the mat or that the mat was not secured. The Court of Appeals expressly rejected the trial court’s holding that a prior injury had to be shown to prove a hazardous condition.
Actual or Constructive Knowledge of a Hazard
Another element to slip and fall cases is that a plaintiff must show that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard. American Mutli-Cinema v. Brown, 285 Ga. 442, 444-45 (2009). Here, the Court of Appeals concluded there was evidence that showed LT Energy had actual knowledge of the mat being unsecured because the store installed the mat. Traver v. Felton Manor, 365 Ga. App. 155, 156 (2022) (holdig that a defendant who installed a hazard is presumed to have knowledge of the allegedly hazardous manner of the item). The Court of Appeals also reasoned that LT Energy could be found to have constructive knowledge because evidence showed that the mat was in the line of sight of an employee working at the cash register. See Mock v. Kroger Co., 267 Ga App. 1, 2 (2004); Whatley v. Nat. Svcs. Indus., 228 Ga. App. 602, 604 (1997).
Exercise of Ordinary Care
An invitee must prove that he either lacked equal or greater knowledge of the hazard despite using ordinary care. Robinson v. Kroger Co., 268 Ga. 735, 748-49 (1997). However, a plaintiff does not have to prove this until the defendant can establish negligence on the part of the plaintiff. Benefield, 308 Ga. App. at 608. Further, a defendant would have to show that the hazard must be the same hazard that caused the plaintiff injury. Teston v. SouthCore Constr., 336 Ga. App. 733. (2016).
LT Energy argues that Johnson had knowledge of the hazardous mat because he was a store regular and had successfully walked over the mat many times before. However, the Court noted that Georgia’s “prior traversal rule” only applies to static conditions. A loose mat was not a static condition because it changes. LT Energy also tried to argue that Johnson had not been using ordinary care because he was looking back at his companion at the time of the fall. The Court disagreed, relying on Teston, in which an invitee is not required to maintain a constant lookout. The Court noted that questions over “how vigilant patrons [are] in various settings…must be answered by juries as a matter of fact.” American Multi-Cinema, 285 Ga. at 445. As such, the Court felt there was a question of fact as to whether Johnson exercised ordinary care.
Conclusion
This case addressed many of the issues that commonly arise in premises liability cases. There are a few important reminders in this decision.
First, you do not have to show prior injuries to show that a condition is hazardous.
Second, the prior traversal rule only applies to static conditions.
Third, a plaintiff is not failing to exercise ordinary care for his own safety by failing to constantly look at the walking surface ahead.
To learn more about The Champion Firm and the personal injury practice areas we cover, visit our main website here. If you’re an attorney seeking to refer a case or partner with us as co-counsel, learn more here.
Citation: Johnson v. LT Energy, LLC, No. A23A0240 (Ga. Ct. App. June 27, 2023)
