How slip and fall claims work in Georgia stores

A Georgia store slip and fall claim works in three steps: prove what you slipped on, show the store knew or should have known about it, and answer the store’s argument that you knew or should have known too. The fight over logs and video serves those steps. Falling isn’t evidence of any of them. As Alterman Foods v. Ligon, 246 Ga. 620 (1980), put it, “Falling and injuring one’s self proves nothing.”

Step one: what caused the fall

All American Quality Foods v. Britten, A24A1262 (2025), ended on this point. The customer fell by the meat section and never saw what caused it. Someone said it was water. A manager had just walked by and seen nothing, and the only evidence of cause was the fall itself. The appeals court reversed the denial of summary judgment.

So the first question from an adjuster may be “what did you slip on?” Answer accurately, and don’t guess. Before anyone wipes the floor, look at the floor, your shoes, and your clothes, and take a photograph. Documenting premises hazards has the order.

Step two: the store’s knowledge

Route	What it takes	Store's answer
Actual	An employee knew of this spot	A general leak problem isn't this leak
Employee nearby	"[I]n the immediate area" and "could have easily seen"	Too far, or view blocked
Time on the floor	Long enough to be found by a reasonable check	Recent inspection

The store’s best card is a recent check. In Drossman v. Wal-Mart Stores East, A24A1720 (2025), two employees had checked the area within about three and a half minutes before the fall, and “the inspection procedure was adequate as a matter of law”. So test that claim against video and against who actually walked where. Inspection routines and notice go deeper. Where the store’s own worker created the problem, the analysis changes, as with the sign in American Multi-Cinema v. Brown, 285 Ga. 442 (2009).

Step three: what you knew, and what you were looking at

This is the part Robinson rewrote. In Robinson v. Kroger, 268 Ga. 735 (1997), Henrietta Robinson admitted she didn’t look at the place where she put her foot, and the lower courts ruled against her. The Supreme Court reversed. It said that demanding as a matter of law that an invitee “visually inspect each footfall” asks too much. Then it set the order of proof: the plaintiff’s burden on this point isn’t shouldered until the store shows the plaintiff’s negligence.

Three recent decisions mark the edges.

Decision	Facts	Outcome
Morano v. Wal-Mart, A26A0191 (2026)	Shopper noticed a spill only after stepping in it, then fell moments later	Summary judgment reversed
Holston v. Aboebarensi, A26A1219 (2026)	Plaintiff saw an air hose before tripping on it	Owner won
Miller v. Dolgencorp, A25A1363 (2025)	Shopper knew aisles were crowded with crates, and caught on one	Store won

Holston was an auto repair shop, but the rule on known hazards isn’t limited to any one business.

Displays and distractions

Robinson speaks directly to stores. A merchant “should be cognizant that the usual shopper travels the aisles with his attention directed toward the item he seeks”, in the words of a decision it quoted. It added: “The merchant deliberately attempts to draw the shopper’s attention to selected items.” A plaintiff who wasn’t looking down because of “something in the control of the owner/occupier” that the store might have anticipated would divert attention has presented “some evidence” of care. The examples it gave were the conduct of a store employee, the premises construction or layout, and a merchandise display whose presence wouldn’t have been anticipated.

What doesn’t count is a distraction you brought with you. Robinson listed a plaintiff’s release of a cart and a conversation with companions as self-induced. A phone is the obvious modern question, and it may be argued the same way. In Barentine v. Kroger, 264 Ga. 224 (1994), a man looking at the cashier he was approaching had “some evidence” of care.

What the store will do first

• Incident report. A manager asks what happened. Ask for the report number. Keep your account short and true.
• Cleanup. The hazard may be gone in minutes.
• Video. It may be saved in part or not at all, so see surveillance footage and spoliation.
• Insurer or claims administrator. A call may come soon, and a recorded statement can matter later. Negotiating with adjusters has more.

Under Phillips v. Harmon, 297 Ga. 386 (2015), notifying an insurer or counsel can be part of what shows the store reasonably foresaw litigation. Send your own request for video right away, naming the date, the time, the aisle, and the time before the fall.

Store hazards and the question each adds

Hazard	Added question
Liquid in an aisle	Source and time
Tracked-in rain	An "unusual accumulation"
Broken tile or threshold	Fixed feature, prior passage
Lot or curb	Who controls the pavement
Merchandise or pallets	Open and known, as in Miller
Falling items	Different mechanics, same knowledge question

Separate pages cover wet floors, weather hazards, flooring, and parking lots.

Who you sue and how long you have

The store’s operating company may differ from the name on the sign, and the building owner may have a separate role under the lease. Find the right entity before the two-year limit in § 9-3-33 runs. Employee names can be added or dropped with counsel’s advice, depending on what they did. Fault is divided under § 51-12-33, and recovery ends at 50 percent. Document medical bills, lost pay, and pain and suffering. SB 68’s § 51-12-1.1 affects how medical special damages are proved for causes of action arising on or after its effective date.

How premises claims work sets out what comes after this point, including discovery and summary judgment.

Sources

• Alterman Foods v. Ligon, 246 Ga. 620
• All American Quality Foods v. Britten, A24A1262
• Drossman v. Wal-Mart Stores East, A24A1720
• American Multi-Cinema v. Brown, 285 Ga. 442
• Robinson v. Kroger, 268 Ga. 735
• Morano v. Wal-Mart Stores East, A26A0191
• Holston v. Aboebarensi, A26A1219
• Miller v. Dolgencorp, A25A1363
• Barentine v. Kroger, 264 Ga. 224
• Phillips v. Harmon, 297 Ga. 386
• Official Code of Georgia Annotated, November 2022 public release: §§ 9-3-33, 51-3-1, 51-12-33
• Georgia Senate Bill 68 (2025): § 51-12-1.1

This page was last reviewed in November 2026 for general information. Laws and court decisions can change after that date. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship.