"An owner's obligation to keep the premises safe includes a duty to inspect the premises to discover possible dangerous conditions of which the owner does not know and to take reasonable precautions to protect the invitee from dangers which are foreseeable from the arrangement and use of the premises." Sipple v. Newman , 313 Ga. App. 688, 690, 722 S.E.2d 348 (2012) (citation and punctuation omitted). However, "diligence may not require an inspection where the owner does not have actual knowledge of the defect and there is nothing in the character of the premises indicating a defect."
Even assuming the stall door and hinges were not specifically inspected, Aydin does not dispute that the bathroom itself was inspected numerous times in the hours before his accident and that no problems were noted. Ordinary care does not necessarily “require an inspection where the owner does not have actual knowledge of the defect and there is nothing in the character of the premises indicating a defect.” Sipple v. Newman, 313 Ga.App. 688, 690 (2012) (citations omitted); see also Thomas v. Deason, 289 Ga.App. 753, 756 (2008) (“[A]lthough an owner owes its invitees a duty of reasonable inspection, it does not follow that the defendant was required to conduct an inspection that disclosed every latent defect on the property.”).
Although a duty to inspect premises exists under Georgia law, this duty exists only if the owner has superior knowledge of the hazard over the invitee. See Sipple v. Newman, 722 S.E.2d 348, 350 (Ct. App. Ga. 2012) ("An owner's obligation to keep the premises safe includes a duty to inspect the premises to discover possible dangerous conditions of which the owner does not know and to take reasonable precautions to protect the invitee from dangers which are foreseeable from the arrangement and use of the premises. Still, the owner's duty to exercise ordinary care is not a duty to absolutely prevent injury as an owner is not an ensurer of the safety of its invitees.
This means that "[a]lthough a landowner has a duty to invitees to exercise ordinary care to keep its premises safe, the landowner is not an insurer of an invitee's safety." See OCGA § 51-3-1 ; Sipple v. Newman , 313 Ga. App. 688, 689-690, 722 S.E.2d 348 (2012) ("Under Georgia law, an owner of land is liable to the owner's invitees ‘for injuries caused by [the owner's] failure to exercise ordinary care in keeping the premises and approaches safe.’ ") (citing OCGA § 51-3-1 ).
Agnes Scott College v. Clark , 273 Ga.App. 619, 621 (1), 616 S.E.2d 468 (2005). See also Sipple v. Newman , 313 Ga.App. 688, 690, 722 S.E.2d 348 (2012). In order to recover on a premises liability claim, a plaintiff must show "(1) that the defendant 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 actions or conditions within the control of the owner/occupier."
Furthermore, in determining whether prior criminal acts are substantially similar to the occurrence causing harm, thereby establishing the foreseeability of risk,Agnes Scott College v. Clark, 273 Ga.App. 619, 621(1), 616 S.E.2d 468 (2005) ; accord Sipple v. Newman, 313 Ga.App. 688, 690, 722 S.E.2d 348 (2012).Agnes Scott College, 273 Ga.App. at 621(1), 616 S.E.2d 468 (emphasis supplied); accord Walker v. Aderhold Props., Inc., 303 Ga.App. 710, 712(1), 694 S.E.2d 119 (2010).
An owner is liable to an invitee for injuries caused by its “failure to exercise ordinary care in keeping the premises and approaches safe.” (Punctuation omitted.) Sipple v. Newman, 313 Ga.App. 688, 689–690, 722 S.E.2d 348 (2012) (quoting OCGA § 51–3–1). As we have said,