Jane Isaac sued Food Lion, Inc. pursuant to OCGA § 51-3-1 for injuries she suffered when she slipped and fell after exiting the Food Lion premises as she was walking to her car. The issue presented in Food Lion’s appeal from the denial of its motion for summary judgment is whether Isaac’s slip and fall occurred in an “approach” to its premises within the meaning of § 51-3-1, which required Food Lion to exercise ordinary care to keep not only its premises but also its approaches safe for invitees. Because the facts establish that Isaac slipped and fell while walking in a parking lot owned and maintained by Food Lion’s landlord, and which was separated from the store by a sidewalk, we find Isaac was not within an “approach” within the meaning of § 51-3-1. Accordingly, the trial court erred by denying summary judgment to Food Lion.
Pursuant to § 51-3-1, Food Lion had a duty to exercise ordinary care to keep the approaches to its premises safe for invitees even if those approaches were over property not within its control. Motel Properties, Inc. v. Miller , 263 Ga. 484, 486 436 SE2d 196 1993; Elmore of Embry Hills v. Porcher , 124 Ga. App. 418, 419-420 183 SE2d 923 1971. Under Motel Properties, “approaches” in § 51-3-1 mean that property directly contiguous, adjacent to, and touching those entryways to premises under the control of an owner or occupier of land, through which the owner or occupier, by express or implied invitation, has induced or led others to come upon his premises for any lawful purpose, and through which such owner or occupier could foresee a reasonable invitee would find it necessary or convenient to traverse while entering or exiting in the course of the business for which the invitation was extended. By ‘contiguous, adjacent to, and touching,’ we mean that property within the last few steps taken by invitees, as opposed to ‘mere pedestrians’ as they enter or exit the premises. Id. at 486 citation and footnote omitted.
