In this slip and fall case, Sallie Blocker appeals the grant of summary judgment to Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Wal-Mart, contending that material issues of fact exist as to Wal-Mart’s constructive knowledge as shown by 1 whether nearby Wal-Mart employees were in a position to discover the hazard on which Blocker slipped, and 2 whether Wal-Mart should have discovered the hazard according to its routine inspection procedure. We conclude that the trial court correctly ruled that nearby Wal-Mart employees were not in a position to easily see the hazard, but because there was no evidence as to whether Wal-Mart carried out its routine inspection procedures, we must reverse the trial court’s ruling on that issue. Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 c. A de novo standard of review applies to an appeal from a grant of summary judgment, and we view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Matjoulis v. Integon Gen. Ins. Corp .1 So viewed, the record shows that in September 2004, Blocker met a friend at Wal-Mart to grocery shop for their church. As Blocker’s friend waited in the checkout line, Blocker decided to use the restroom located at the front of the store. On her way back from the restroom, Blocker slipped on a grape on the floor and fell, injuring her knee. Shortly after she fell, Wal-Mart employees attended to her and filled out an incident report based on what Blocker told them.
Blocker sued Wal-Mart for her injury, claiming that Wal-Mart breached its duty to her to keep the store premises reasonably safe. Following discovery, Wal-Mart moved for summary judgment, arguing that it had neither actual nor constructive knowledge of the grape on which Blocker slipped. After a hearing, the trial court granted Wal-Mart’s motion, giving rise to this appeal. In order to recover for injuries sustained in a slip-and-fall action, an invitee 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. However, the plaintiff’s evidentiary proof concerning the second prong is not shouldered until the defendant establishes negligence on the part of the plaintiff. Robinson v. Kroger Co. 2
