The Owner argues that it was entitled to summary judgment based on the rule that a plaintiff who had previously traversed a static defect is presumed to have knowledge of that defect. See Pye v. Reagin , 262 Ga. App. 490, 491-492, 586 S.E.2d 5 (2003). But for that rule to apply, the plaintiff must have "successfully negotiated [the] alleged dangerous condition on a previous occasion[.]"
In other words, that case did not expand an owner's liability based upon a broad reading of the term "invitee." 262 Ga. App. 490 ( 586 SE2d 5) (2003). Id. at 491-492.
See Trulove, supra (plaintiff who had been on pool deck for an hour had equal knowledge with property owner of static defect that deck lacked railing). See Pye v. Reagin, 262 Ga.App. 490, 491(1), 586 S.E.2d 5 (2003) (tree roots on which invitee tripped are considered a static defect). Kranz also argues that a tree “may blow in the wind, extending or contracting its reach as it moves.”
(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Pye v. Reagin, 262 Ga. App. 490, 491-492 ( 586 S.E.2d 5) (2003). Thus, a plaintiff who has previously traversed the same rainy ramp without falling may not recover for injury arising from a subsequent fall thereon.
Accordingly, to prevail in a slip and fall case, a plaintiff must show that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the injury-causing hazard, and "that the plaintiff lacked knowledge of the hazard despite the exercise of ordinary care due to actions or conditions within the control of the owner/occupier." Pye v. Reagin , 262 Ga. App. 490, 491, 586 S.E.2d 5 (2003) (citation omitted). Constructive knowledge of a hazard may be established by "showing that an employee of the defendant was present in the immediate area and could easily have seen the [hazard] and removed it[,]" or by showing that the hazard was on the premises "for such a time that it would have been discovered and removed, had the proprietor exercised reasonable care in inspecting the premises."