Reasonable inspection routine analysis in Georgia premises liability

A reasonable inspection routine can defeat a Georgia premises claim, because it answers the question of constructive knowledge. In Drossman v. Wal-Mart Stores East, A24A1720 (2025), the court said that “when an owner shows that an inspection occurred within a brief period of time prior to an invitee’s fall, the inspection procedure was adequate as a matter of law”. So the plaintiff’s job is to test whether the routine really happened, where, and when.

Where inspection fits in the claim

Alterman Foods v. Ligon, 246 Ga. 620 (1980), and Robinson v. Kroger, 268 Ga. 735 (1997), require that “the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge” of the hazard. Constructive knowledge can be shown through a nearby employee who could easily have seen it, or through a hazard present long enough that a reasonable inspection would have found it. Actual versus constructive notice separates these.

Route	What the plaintiff shows	The owner's reply
Employee nearby	Someone was close, and could easily have seen	Too far, or the view was blocked
Time on the floor	The hazard lasted long enough	An inspection happened shortly before
No routine at all	No program, or it wasn't followed	Records and witnesses

What the owner has to show

Georgia decisions put a practical burden on an owner who relies on a routine. It needs evidence of a program, and that the program was carried out on that day. A written policy that nobody followed isn’t enough. Key points to probe:

Question	Records	Weakness to look for
Is there a written program?	Policy manual	Too general
Who was assigned?	Schedules	Nobody for that aisle
When was the last check?	Log or app record	Filled in afterward, or in a block
Did it reach this spot?	Route, video	The log covers the store, not the place
Was the checker trained?	Training file	No training on what to look for
Did the video agree?	Footage	Employee passes without looking

A timed log gets its value from being made at the time. Ask for metadata if a log is electronic. Compare it with video, and with the employee’s testimony. In American Multi-Cinema v. Brown, 285 Ga. 442 (2009), the Supreme Court said that “issues such as how closely a particular retailer should monitor its premises” are questions that, in general, must be answered by juries. Drossman shows the other side, where a recent inspection and a distant employee ended the case.

What’s reasonable depends on the place

No statute gives a number of minutes. Be cautious about figures such as “every 30 minutes” unless they come from this defendant’s policy, from evidence about similar businesses, or from a specific decision applied to its facts. These factors affect the argument:

• Type of premises. A grocery aisle and an office lobby present different risks.
• Known problem spots. A recurring leak or a produce section may call for more attention.
• Traffic and timing. A rush, a storm, or a closing shift can change what is reasonable.
• The hazard’s nature. A hard-to-see clear liquid may not be found on a quick look.
• Resources. A small business can argue its size, though it doesn’t excuse having no procedure.
• The defendant’s own rules. A policy can show what it thought was needed, but a violation isn’t negligence by itself, as Luckie v. Piggly-Wiggly Southern, 173 Ga. App. 177, says: “Privately established rules are admissible as illustrative of negligence.”

When a routine doesn’t answer the claim

Some claims don’t turn on inspection.

Actual knowledge. If the owner knew, inspection is beside the point. In Brown, the theater’s own worker placed the sign that tripped the customer.

Created hazards. Where an employee or the owner’s activity created the problem, knowledge follows more directly. Cleaning crews and leaking equipment raise this.

Causation. A routine doesn’t matter if the plaintiff can’t show what caused the fall. In All American Quality Foods v. Britten, A24A1262 (2025), the court found no evidence connecting the fall to a substance.

Plaintiff’s knowledge. An owner can also win on equal knowledge, though Robinson limits that at summary judgment. See wet floor cases and store falls.

Getting the proof

Item	Why ask early	Note
Inspection logs	May be discarded on a schedule	Ask for several days before and after
Video from all relevant cameras	Overwrites	The period before the fall is key
Incident report	Statements made soon after	Work product may be claimed
Employee schedules	Who was on the floor	Identify witnesses
Prior incidents	Notice of a recurring hazard	Scope may be contested
Policy and training	What was expected	Compare with practice

Send a preservation letter right after the fall. Georgia’s duty to preserve can arise once litigation is reasonably foreseeable, under Phillips v. Harmon, 297 Ga. 386 (2015). Video evidence and spoliation go further. Video of the fall alone isn’t all that matters. An employee walking the aisle without looking may help, as can the last time anyone passed.

Questions for the deposition

1. When and how did you learn about the routine?
2. What exactly do you do on a check?
3. Where did you go on this day, and how do you know?
4. Who filled in the log, and when?
5. What happens if you’re busy with a customer?
6. Had this spot been a problem before?

Fault remains divided under § 51-12-33, and a plaintiff at 50 percent or more recovers nothing. The two-year deadline in § 9-3-33 applies.

Sources

• Drossman v. Wal-Mart Stores East, A24A1720
• Alterman Foods v. Ligon, 246 Ga. 620
• Robinson v. Kroger, 268 Ga. 735
• American Multi-Cinema v. Brown, 285 Ga. 442
• Luckie v. Piggly-Wiggly Southern, 173 Ga. App. 177
• All American Quality Foods v. Britten, A24A1262
• Phillips v. Harmon, 297 Ga. 386
• Official Code of Georgia Annotated, November 2022 public release: §§ 9-3-33, 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.