David R. Brown filed suit against Host/Taco Joint Venture to recover for injuries that he sustained when he slipped and fell on a grease spot while dining in Host’s restaurant. Host filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. Brown appeals, contending that the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of Host was improper since genuine issues of material fact remain for jury consideration as to whether Host had actual or constructive knowledge of the grease spot hazard that caused his fall. We disagree and affirm. On appeal from a grant of summary judgment, we conduct a de novo review, and we view the evidence and the inferences drawn from it in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. A defendant demonstrates entitlement to summary judgment by showing that the record lacks evidence sufficient to create a jury issue on at least one essential element of the plaintiff’s case. The defendant does not need to affirmatively disprove the plaintiff’s case, but may prevail simply by pointing to the lack of evidence. If the defendant does so, the plaintiff cannot rest on his pleadings, but must point to specific evidence that gives rise to a triable issue of fact. Citation omitted. Food Lion, LLC v. Walker , 290 Ga. App. 574 660 SE2d 426 2008. So viewed, the record evidence shows that on or about February 11, 2006, Brown visited Host’s restaurant to dine with several of his companions. After being seated, Brown’s cell phone rang and he left the table to answer the call. As Brown walked down a hallway away from his table, he slipped and fell on a grease spot that was on the floor. Brown claimed that he did not see the grease spot until after his fall.
The restaurant’s on-duty manager responded to the site of the fall. The manager attested that part of her responsibilities included inspecting the restaurant’s premises. She stated that the restaurant’s inspection policy required her, the bussers, and servers to continuously inspect the floors and to look for any potential hazards or foreign substances. If a potential hazard was observed, the policy required that it be cleaned immediately. If the potential hazard required mopping of the floor, the manager was required to stand at the location of the hazard until a “wet floor” sign was placed in the area and the hazard was mopped and removed. The manager further attested that in accordance with this policy, she had inspected the floors of the dining area every fifteen minutes. She stated that she had inspected the area where Brown fell approximately fifteen minutes prior to Brown’s fall and that the floor had been clean and dry at that time. In order to recover for injuries sustained in a slip-and-fall action, a plaintiff must prove 1 that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard; and 2 that the plaintiff lacked knowledge of the hazard despite the exercise of ordinary care due to actions or conditions within the control of the owner/occupier. . . . The fundamental basis for a defendant’s liability is that party’s superior knowledge of the hazard encountered by the plaintiff. Citations, punctuation, and footnotes omitted. Hardee’s Food Systems v. Green , 232 Ga. App. 864 502 SE2d 738 1998. See also Robinson v. Kroger Co. , 268 Ga. 735, 749 2 b 493 SE2d 403 1997; Alterman Foods v. Ligon , 246 Ga. 620, 623 272 SE2d 327 1980. Brown does not dispute that Host lacked actual knowledge of the alleged grease spot hazard. Accordingly, the viability of Brown’s claim depends upon whether there was evidence that Host had constructive knowledge of the hazard.
