[Doc. 25-1, p. 5]. "Constructive knowledge may be shown by demonstrating that (1) an employee of the defendant was in the immediate vicinity of the fall and had an opportunity to correct the hazardous condition prior to the fall, or (2) the hazardous condition had existed for a sufficient length of time that it would have been discovered and removed had the proprietor exercised reasonable care in inspecting the premises." Kroger Co. v. Schoenhoff, 751 S.E.2d 438, 440 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013) (quoting Benefield v. Tominich, 708 S.E.2d 563, 566-67 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011)). Under the first method of showing constructive knowledge, plaintiff must show more than the mere presence of defendant's employees in the area; there must have been a reasonable opportunity to discover and remove the hazard.

The Borkowskis' citation to Kroger Co. v. Schoenhoff, 751 S.E.2d 438 (Ga.Ct.App. 2013), is similarly unavailing. In Schoenhoff, the plaintiff slipped near the floral section of a Kroger well after 6:00 p.m. on one of the busiest shopping days of the week.

ECF 41, ¶ 14. Georgia law makes clear that a landowner's constructive knowledge arises in at least two instances: (1) when the landowner “creates a dangerous condition on his property,” Hamblin v. City of Albany, 272 Ga.App. 246, 248 (2005), and (2) when the landowner reasonably should have discovered and corrected a dangerous condition but failed to do so, Kroger Co. v. Schoenhoff, 324 Ga.App. 619, 620 (2013). Imputing knowledge to the landowner in both instances makes sense, given the two aspects of the landowner's duty of care: (1) to take reasonable precautions to mitigate foreseeable risks, and (2) to reasonably inspect the property to discover and mitigate unknown risks.

(Citation and punctuation omitted.) The Kroger Co. v. Schoenhoff, 324 Ga.App. 619, 622-623 (751 S.E.2d 438)

*220 (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Kroger Co. v. Schoenhoff, 324 Ga. App. 619 , 622-623 (751 SE2d 438 ) (2013). It follows that the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Rainbow as to the issue of constructive knowledge under the second prong of the test was erroneous.

(Punctuation omitted.) Kroger Co. v. Schoenhoff, 324 Ga.App. 619, 620, 751 S.E.2d 438 (2013).demonstrating that (1) an employee of the defendant was in the immediate vicinity of the fall and had an opportunity to correct the hazardous condition prior to the fall, or (2) the hazardous condition had existed for a sufficient length of time that it would have been discovered and removed had the proprietor exercised reasonable care in inspecting the premises.

Neither need Flickinger detail what other potential elements may have made the accumulation of water more dangerous. See Kroger Co. v. Schoenhoff, 751 S.E.2d 438, 441-42 (Ct. App. Ga. 2013) (affirming the denial of the proprietor's motion for directed verdict where the issue of the proprietor's knowledge of a puddle of water was given to the jury and no other elements but water were alleged to have caused the fall). Flickinger's allegations that it was raining outside, that water was coming into the covered middle bay, and that water was falling from Flickinger's vehicle, creating an accumulation that caused her to fall, are enough.

The length of time the hazard must remain on the floor before the owner should have discovered it depends on the nature of the business, its size, the number of customers present, the nature of the hazard, and the location of the business. Kroger Co. v. Schoenhoff, 324 Ga. App. 619, 621 (2013) (quoting Davis v. Bruno's Supermarkets, Inc., 263 Ga. App. 147, 150 (2003)). According to Plaintiff, the candy apple was stuck to the concrete ground when she tripped over it.

Walmart Stores East, L.P. v. Benson , 343 Ga. App. 74, 78 (1) (b), 806 S.E.2d 25 (2017) (punctuation omitted).SeeKroger Co. v. Schoenhoff , 324 Ga. App. 619, 621, 751 S.E.2d 438 (2013) (noting that what constitutes a reasonable inspection procedure varies with each case, depending on the nature of the business, the size of the store, the number of customers, the nature of the dangerous condition, and the store's location); The Augusta Country Club, Inc. v. Blake , 280 Ga. App. 650, 653 (1) (a), 634 S.E.2d 812 (2006) (same).Brown v. Host/Taco Joint Venture , 305 Ga. App. 248, 252, 699 S.E.2d 439 (2010) (punctuation omitted).

Accordingly, the trial court erred in setting aside the verdict.Because there was evidence from which a jury could infer that Kroger had constructive knowledge of the hazard (based on its failure to follow reasonable inspection procedures), we need not reach the issue of whether sufficient evidence existed to create a jury issue on whether Kroger employees were in the immediate area of the hazard and could have easily seen and removed it. Kroger Co. v. Schoenhoff , 324 Ga. App. 619, 623, 751 S.E.2d 438 (2013). 2.