Defective flooring cases in Georgia premises liability

A Georgia defective flooring claim needs a real defect in the surface, the owner’s knowledge of it, and a reason the person couldn’t protect against it. Slick or shiny alone won’t do. In Alterman Foods v. Ligon, 246 Ga. 620 (1980), a customer said the floor was “slippery and highly polished as usual”. The Supreme Court still ruled for the store, because nothing showed a negligent material or application of the wax.

Three kinds of flooring claim

Claim	What must be shown	Decision
The finish or material itself	A negligent material or a negligent way of applying it, not just a slick feel	Alterman
A physical defect, such as a raised edge or loose board	The defect, its effect on this fall, and superior knowledge	Goodstein; Hailu
Something on the floor	Treated as a moved or foreign item, not a defect	Johnson v. LT Energy

The third line is why classification matters early. In Johnson v. LT Energy, A23A0240 (2023), a mat that moved wasn’t a static condition, so the prior traversal rule didn’t apply. Wet floor cases cover liquids.

A long-standing defect isn’t automatic knowledge

It’s tempting to say that a defect present for years must have been known. The law requires more care than that. Age supports the argument, since the owner had time to find it. But the question is still knowledge, and a plaintiff has to show it. In American Multi-Cinema v. Gillis, A24A0537 (2024), an expert called a stair condition a code violation, and the theater still won because the condition was open and visible.

Fact	How it helps	How it can hurt
Worn path in a carpet	Shows time on the premises	Equally visible to the plaintiff
Earlier complaint	Actual knowledge	Must be about this condition
Prior repair at the spot	Knowledge of a problem	May be a fix, not a warning sign
Installed against spec	Points to the builder or contractor	Who built it may be another party

Who put the floor in can matter. Under Flagler Co. v. Savage, 258 Ga. 335 (1988), a contractor following plans won on its own claim, and an out-of-possession landlord stayed in the case under § 44-7-14 for defective construction or failure to repair.

Prior passage is the fight

A fixed floor condition invites this defense: you walked here before, so you knew. The case can end there. In Meadows v. Dollar General, 371 Ga. App. 695 (2024), the plaintiff had come through the same door the same day, and the store won. But the rule has edges.

• Not the specific hazard. In Brixmor New Chastain Corners v. James, 367 Ga. App. 235 (2023), walking near the hazard wasn’t undisputed proof of crossing it.
• No evidence of a passage. In North Fulton v. Goodstein, 367 Ga. App. 576 (2023), nobody had asked whether the man had walked over the rise on earlier visits.
• Different entry. In Hailu v. John Milledge Academy, A25A1130 (2025), an administrator told a visitor to use a different entrance, and the hump there looked like the surrounding asphalt.

So write down the route and whether the same spot was crossed, and be exact. In Hailu, an expert’s point about lack of contrast helped. The visibility of a defect at the moment, not from a standing inspection afterward, is the question. Robinson said that someone inspecting a scene afterward from a standing position doesn’t settle “whether or not the injured invitee was exercising ordinary care” before the fall.

What the plaintiff should prove about the defect

1. Location. Which board, tile, or threshold, with a photo and a measurement.
2. Mechanism. How it caught the foot or shoe. Which foot, which direction.
3. Size. Height differences should be measured, not estimated.
4. Look. Color, contrast, and light at that hour.
5. Time on the premises. Inspection reports, installers’ invoices, and work orders.
6. Others’ experience. Earlier falls at that spot, with scope likely contested.

For a floor said to be too slick, testing can matter. An expert’s method must meet § 24-7-702, and testing a floor months later raises a question about whether the surface is the same. Expert disclosures covers the gate. Have counsel think about the test before anyone touches the floor. Also ask whether any standard an expert cites has legal force here, since a private rule isn’t negligence by itself. Luckie v. Piggly-Wiggly Southern, 173 Ga. App. 177, calls such rules “admissible as illustrative of negligence”.

Getting access

A repair may come fast, and § 24-4-407 limits the use of later fixes to prove negligence. It’s still important to document the original state. Ask in writing for an inspection before repair. After suit, § 9-11-34(a)(2) allows a request to enter and to inspect, measure, photograph, and test. Documenting premises hazards has the first-day steps.

By place

Place	Extra question
Store or office	Who maintains the floor under the lease?
Apartment hallway	§ 51-3-1 for space the landlord keeps, as Cham explains
Inside a rented unit	§ 44-7-13 and § 44-7-14
Restaurant	Grease and cleaning products may make it a foreign-substance case
Hospital or nursing home	Special claims may need a different analysis, including care of the patient

Under Robinson, a distraction helps only if it comes from something the owner controlled and knew or should have known would divert attention. Store falls has more on that. Fault goes to § 51-12-33, and § 9-3-33 sets two years.

Sources

• Alterman Foods v. Ligon, 246 Ga. 620
• Johnson v. LT Energy, A23A0240
• American Multi-Cinema v. Gillis, A24A0537
• Flagler Co. v. Savage, 258 Ga. 335
• Meadows v. Dollar General, 371 Ga. App. 695
• Brixmor New Chastain Corners v. James, 367 Ga. App. 235
• North Fulton Community Charities v. Goodstein, 367 Ga. App. 576
• Hailu v. John Milledge Academy, A25A1130
• Robinson v. Kroger, 268 Ga. 735
• Luckie v. Piggly-Wiggly Southern, 173 Ga. App. 177
• Official Code of Georgia Annotated, November 2022 public release: §§ 9-3-33, 9-11-34, 24-4-407, 24-7-702, 44-7-13, 44-7-14, 51-3-1, 51-12-33

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.