David Ward sued Autry Petroleum Company for personal injuries sustained when he fell after stepping on a water hose that was on the pavement of Autry’s service station parking lot. Autry moved for summary judgment on the basis that the water hose was an open and obvious hazard and that Ward knew of its presence prior to his fall. Ward appeals from the order of the Lowndes County Superior Court granting Autry’s motion for summary judgment. Because jury issues exist as to whether Ward had knowledge of the hazard that was equal to Autry’s and whether Ward failed to exercise reasonable care for his own safety, we reverse. We apply a de novo standard of review to an appeal from a grant of summary judgment and view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the non-movant. Wentworth v. Eckerd Corp. , 248 Ga. App. 94 545 SE2d 647 2001. A defendant may obtain summary judgment by showing an absence of evidence supporting at least one essential element of the plaintiff’s claim. Id.
“Where an owner or occupier of land, by express or implied invitation, induces or leads others to come upon his premises for any lawful purpose, he is liable in damages to such persons for injuries caused by his failure to exercise ordinary care in keeping the premises and approaches safe.” OCGA § 51-3-1. In order to prevail on a premises liability claim, a plaintiff must prove that 1 the owner or proprietor had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard and 2 the plaintiff lacked knowledge of the hazard despite exercising ordinary care. Robinson v. Kroger Co. , 268 Ga. 735, 736 1 493 SE2d 403 1997. “The true basis of a proprietor’s liability for personal injury to an invitee is the proprietor’s superior knowledge of a condition that may expose the invitees to an unreasonable risk of harm. Recovery is allowed only when the proprietor had knowledge of the hazard and the invitee did not.” Footnote omitted. Christensen v. Overseas Partners Capital , 249 Ga. App. 827, 828 549 SE2d 784 2001. Additionally, in a premises liability case, issues of the defendant’s negligence, the plaintiff’s negligence, and the plaintiff’s lack of ordinary care for his own safety are generally not susceptible of summary adjudication. Robinson v. Kroger Co. , 268 Ga. at 748. Only where the evidence is plain, palpable, and undisputable can the trial court conclude that a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id.
