Plaintiff Clifton Pylant brought suit against Samuels, Inc. d/b/a Samuels Truck Stop & Restaurant Samuels to recover for injuries he allegedly sustained when he slipped and fell in a shower stall owned and operated by Samuels. The trial court granted summary judgment to Samuels and Pylant filed this appeal. Because we find that summary judgment was not appropriate in this case, we reverse the judgment of the trial court. When viewed in the light most favorable to Pylant, the nonmovant, the record shows the following: Sometime during the evening of October 11, 1999, Pylant stopped at Samuels to eat dinner with the intention of spending the night in his truck. Samuels has shower stalls and provides soap and towels for the use of its fuel customers; customers who do not purchase fuel can pay five dollars for use of the shower. According to Pylant, the shower was filthy but he could not tell if it was “dirt or grease or just filth.” Pylant said he saw two white bars of used soap on the floor as he entered the shower, and that he used a paper towel to pick them up and throw them away. According to Pylant, he had just begun to shower and was washing his face and neck when he slipped and fell. Pylant testified that after he fell he looked down and saw the remains of another bar of soap and that it looked like a “smear.”
1. Pylant argues, and we agree, that disputed issues of material fact precluded summary judgment in this case. An owner or occupier of land is liable to invitees for injuries caused by his failure to exercise ordinary care in keeping his premises and approaches safe. This duty of ordinary care requires the owner to protect the invitee from unreasonable risks of harm of which the owner has superior knowledge and to inspect the premises to discover possible dangerous conditions of which the owner does not have actual knowledge. To recover for injuries sustained in a slip and fall action, therefore, the invitee must prove 1 that the owner 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 the actions or conditions within the control of the owner. Cit. Gilbert v. Automotive Purchasing Service , 254 Ga. App. 770, 771 563 SE2d 906 2002.
