Furthermore, the term "approaches," as used in OCGA ยง 51โ3โ1, has been construed to meanMotel Props., Inc. v. Miller, 263 Ga. 484, 485(1), 436 S.E.2d 196 (1993), citing Todd v. F.W. Woolworth Co., 258 Ga. 194, 197(1), 366 S.E.2d 674 (1988). 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.
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. Motel Properties v. Miller, 263 Ga. 484, 486 (2), 436 S.E.2d 196 (1993). [3โ5] Generally, property is "contiguous, adjacent to, and touching" the entryway of an ownerโs premises if it is "within the last few steps taken by invitees, as opposed to mere pedestrians, as they enter or exit the premises."
In short, Six Flags did not demonstrate the โpositive exercise of dominion over a public way or anotherโs property [that] is necessary in order to avoid โimposing upon invitors an unknowable and impossible burden for maintaining an undefined circumference of properties.โ โ Motel Properties v. Miller, 263 Ga. 484 , 486 (3) (436 SE2d 196 ) (1993) (citation and punctuation omitted). We have defined the term โapproachesโ as follows:
[The words] "contiguous, adjacent to, and touching" . . . mean that property within the last few steps taken by invitees, as opposed to "mere pedestrians," as they enter or exit the premises.Motel Props., Inc. v. Miller, 436 S.E.2d 196, 198 (Ga. 1993) (citations and punctuation omitted). "[A]n approach to a . . . store includes the 'sidewalk immediately in front of and adjacent to the premises . . . , but it [does] not include the landlord owned and maintained parking lot adjacent to the sidewalk.'"
In short, Six Flags did not demonstrate the "positive exercise of dominion over a public way or another's property [that] is necessary in order to avoid โimposing upon invitors an unknowable and impossible burden for maintaining an undefined circumference of properties.โ " Motel Properties, Inc. v. Miller , 263 Ga. 484, 486 (2), 436 S.E.2d 196 (1993) (citation omitted). We have defined the term "approaches" as follows:
The undisputed facts show that Boyd was not on the Big Lots store premises when she slipped and fell in the common area parking lot, and the trial court correctly concluded that the parking lot was not an approach to the store premises within the meaning of OCGA ยง 51-3-1. Under Motel Properties, Inc. v. Miller , 263 Ga. 484, 486, 436 S.E.2d 196 (1993), an approach to the premises for the purpose of OCGA ยง 51-3-1 means 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
Pursuant to ยง 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 S.E.2d 196) (1993); Elmore of Embry Hills v. Porcher, 124 Ga. App. 418, 419-420 ( 183 S.E.2d 923) (1971). Under Motel Properties, "approaches" in ยง 51-3-1 mean
We disagree. In Motel Properties v. Miller, 263 Ga. 484 (1) ( 436 S.E.2d 196) (1993), our Supreme Court addressed the issue of what physically constitutes an "approach." Under Motel Properties the term "approach" "`refers to the sidewalk or other approach that is directly contiguous, adjacent to, and touching the premises under control of the owner or occupier.' [Cit.
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Motel Properties v. Miller, 263 Ga. 484, 486 (2) ( 436 SE2d 196) (1993). Thus, an approach is also known as the last few steps taken by an invitee immediately before entering the owner's premises.
Motel Properties v. Miller. See Elmore of Embry Hills, Inc. v. Porcher ("approaches. . . refers to the sidewalk or other approach that is directly contiguous, adjacent to, and touching the premises under control of the owner or occupier") (punctuation omitted). Motel Properties v. Miller, 263 Ga. 484, 486 (2) (436 SE2d 196)(1993).Elmore of Embry Hills, Inc. v. Porcher, 124 Ga. App. 418, 420 (183 SE2d 923)(1971).