"The mere existence of a dangerous condition does not render the proprietor liable, for the proprietor is not a guarantor of the invitee's safety." Moore v. Food Assoc., 210 Ga. App. 780, 782 ( 437 SE2d 832) (1993). Although a proprietor has a duty to inspect the premises to discover possible dangerous conditions and to take reasonable precautions to protect the invitee from foreseeable dangers on the premises, "it is well settled that a proprietor is under no duty to patrol the premises continuously in the absence of facts showing that the premises are unusually dangerous."

" Dixie Diners Atlanta v. Gwinnett Fed. Bank, FSB, 211 Ga. App. 364, 366 (1) ( 439 S.E.2d 53) (1993). Our review is de novo. Moore v. Food Assoc., 210 Ga. App. 780, 781 ( 437 S.E.2d 832) (1993). Defendants may prevail on summary judgment under OCGA § 9-11-56 (e) "by showing the court that the documents, affidavits, depositions and other evidence in the record reveal that there is no evidence sufficient to create a jury issue on at least one essential element of plaintiff's case."

Union Camp Corp. v. Daley, 188 Ga. App. 756 (1) ( 374 S.E.2d 329). In light of this actual knowledge, DHR's reliance on Moore v. Food Assoc., 210 Ga. App. 780, 782 ( 437 S.E.2d 832), is misplaced. Moore represents, at best, a constructive knowledge situation. A complete and correct citation of that decision's rationale is: "It is not enough for the plaintiff to say that she did not see the dangerous condition and that the defendant must have known it was there."

, we cannot conduct meaningful appellate review of the order granting Emory's motion for summary judgment. See Moore v. Food Associates, 210 Ga.App. 780, 781 (437 S.E.2d 832) (1993) ("It is well established that on appeal of a grant of summary judgment, the appellate court must determine whether the trial court erred in concluding that no genuine issue of material fact remains and that the party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

A defendant meets this burden by "showing the court that the documents, affidavits, depositions and other evidence in the record reveal that there is no evidence sufficient to create a jury issue on at least one essential element of plaintiff's case. . . . All of the other disputes of fact are rendered immaterial."Moore v. Food Assoc., 210 Ga. App. 780, 781 ( 437 SE2d 832) (1993). OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

A defendant meets this burden by Moore v. Food Assoc, 210 Ga. App. 780 ( 437 SE2d 832) (1993). OCGA § 9-11-56 (c).

See Ga. L. 2000, p. 498, § 4, effective April 20, 2000, and OCGA § 13-10-60 through 13-10-65. In considering the grant of a motion for summary judgment, this Court conducts a de novo review to determine whether the trial court correctly found the absence of material issues of fact. Moore v. Food Assoc., 210 Ga. App. 780, 781 ( 437 S.E.2d 832) (1993). In conducting this review, we consider the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.

In conducting that review, we consider the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-movant.Moore v. Food Assoc., 210 Ga. App. 780, 781 ( 437 S.E.2d 832) (1993).Davis v. Rich's Dept. Stores, 248 Ga. App. 116 ( 545 S.E.2d 661) (2001).

[T]his Court reviews the grant of summary judgment de novo to determine whether any genuine issue of material fact exists for resolution by jury. Moore v. Food Assoc., 210 Ga. App. 780, 781 ( 437 S.E.2d 832) (1993). Summary judgment is proper where the moving party is able to show that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the movant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.

On a defendant's motion for summary judgment, we construe the evidence in the plaintiff's favor, giving plaintiff the benefit of all doubts and indulging all reasonable inferences in plaintiff's favor. Moore v. Food Assoc., 210 Ga. App. 780, 781 ( 437 S.E.2d 832) (1993). Summary judgment is appropriate only if under the facts as so construed, judgment is required as a matter of law.