Surveillance footage evidence in Georgia slip and fall cases

Surveillance video can decide a Georgia slip and fall claim, and it can show more than the fall: how long the hazard was there, whether employees walked past it, and where the plaintiff was looking. The urgent problem is that a system can overwrite itself. So ask for it the same day if possible, name a period before the fall, and don’t assume the store will keep it just because an incident report was written.

What to ask for beyond the fall

Period or camera	What it can prove	Why it matters
Time before the hazard appeared	When and how it got there	Duration and source
Time between the hazard and the fall	Whether anyone passed or looked	Constructive knowledge
Employee movement	Who was close	The nearby employee route
Inspection times in the log	Whether the check happened	Tests the store's routine
The fall	Mechanics, and where the person was looking	Plaintiff's care
After the fall	Cleanup, cones, what staff did	Knowledge and alteration
Other camera angles	Sight lines	Visibility of the hazard

Request all cameras that cover the path, not only the one pointed at the fall. A store may offer a clip of the fall itself. The period before it, sometimes hours, may be the part that shows knowledge. How far back to ask depends on the case. If the store relies on a sweep shortly before the fall, that time must be included.

Reasonable inspection routines explains why a claimed check matters, and wet floor cases shows what the plaintiff needs to prove about the liquid.

Video cuts both ways

Decisions read video closely, and a plaintiff should watch it with a critical eye before committing to a story.

For the plaintiff. In Morano v. Wal-Mart Stores East, A26A0191 (2026), the video wasn’t clear, and a foot movement could be read as an effort to escape the hazard, so the court reversed summary judgment.

For the owner. In Drossman v. Wal-Mart Stores East, A24A1720 (2025), a recent inspection and a distant employee helped end the claim. In Stevens v. Welch, A25A0778 (2025), photographs of the edge at issue helped show that it could be seen.

Video may also show a phone in the hand, a person looking away, or a detour around a sign. Robinson v. Kroger, 268 Ga. 735 (1997), says not looking isn’t negligence as a matter of law, yet all of this can be argued to a jury. Under § 51-12-33, a plaintiff at 50 percent or more recovers nothing.

Before a lawsuit exists

No suit is needed for the duty to arise. Under Phillips v. Harmon, 297 Ga. 386 (2015), it can be triggered when litigation is reasonably foreseeable to the owner, in light of the injury, how clear fault is, the potential exposure, and what the owner did in response. So an obvious injury and a call to an insurer may matter even without a letter. A letter also fixes a date for when the owner knew.

What to write. Date, time, store location, the exact spot, camera coverage, the period to keep, and the name of the injured person. Send it to the store and its corporate office, and to any manager or insurer contact. Use delivery with proof of receipt.

What to ask in person. The injured person can ask the manager to keep the video and write down who agreed. A verbal promise isn’t a guarantee, so follow up in writing.

Don’t rely on one copy. Nearby businesses, parking lot systems, or a companion’s phone may have a separate record.

After suit

Step	Point to cover
Request for production	Original format, with metadata, and every camera
Records deposition	System, retention period, who exported what
Native file vs. clip	Exported clips may be trimmed, and timestamps need checking
Camera clock	It may not match real time
Authentication	A witness or certificate, under the evidence rules
Expert review	Enhancement must not change what the jury sees

Ask how the system works: how long it holds footage, how it overwrites, who can export, and what happened in this case. Those facts become the record for any spoliation motion.

Be careful with versions. A slowed or annotated copy is argument unless the source is available and the changes are explained.

If it’s gone

A missing video may support relief. Holston v. Aboebarensi, A26A1219 (2026), lists the factors, and it shows how much discretion the trial court has. Hailu v. John Milledge Academy, A25A1130 (2025), held that the plaintiff didn’t carry the burden of proving the video showed the fall. The full analysis is on spoliation of evidence.

Selective saving deserves a closer look. If the store kept the fall but not the prior hour, ask who decided, when, and on what basis. Also find out whether the same person prepared a report or spoke with the insurer at that time.

A plaintiff’s own video

Dash cams, phones, and doorbell cameras may also help. Keep the original files, with no editing. Don’t post them. Social media commentary about the event may later come back through § 24-8-801(d)(2), as a party’s own statement.

Sources

• Morano v. Wal-Mart Stores East, A26A0191
• Drossman v. Wal-Mart Stores East, A24A1720
• Stevens v. Welch, A25A0778
• Robinson v. Kroger, 268 Ga. 735
• Phillips v. Harmon, 297 Ga. 386
• Holston v. Aboebarensi, A26A1219
• Hailu v. John Milledge Academy, A25A1130
• Official Code of Georgia Annotated, November 2022 public release: §§ 24-8-801, 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.