“[A] property owner is not an insurer of an invitee's safety, and an intervening criminal act by a third party generally insulates a proprietor from liability unless such criminal act was reasonably foreseeable.”(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Whitfield v. Tequila Mexican Rest. No. 1, 323 Ga.App. 801, 803(2), 748 S.E.2d 281 (2013). “In order to be reasonably foreseeable, the criminal act must be substantially similar in type to the previous criminal activities occurring on or near the premises so that a reasonable person would take ordinary precautions to protect his or her customers against the risk posed by that type of activity.”

This Court reviews the grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. See Whitfield v. Tequila Mexican Restaurant, No. 1, Inc., 323 Ga.App. 801, 802(2), 748 S.E.2d 281 (2013). So viewed, the evidence shows that Walter began farming his family's land around 1949 and eventually accumulated over 600 acres of land in Grady and Decatur Counties. And as early as 1967, Walter's son, Bobby, began farming alongside his father, growing primarily corn and peanuts.

We review the denial of summary judgment de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. See Whitfield v. Tequila Mexican Restaurant No. 1, Inc., 323 Ga.App. 801, 802(2), 748 S.E.2d 281 (2013). So viewed, the record shows that on February 11, 2012, Carroll was grocery shopping at an Ingles store in Villa Rica, Georgia. Right before the incident, Carroll was exiting the cereal aisle and on her way to get milk.

“A spoliation claim cannot be pursued unless the spoliating party was under a duty to preserve evidence.” Whitfield v. Tequila Mexican Restaurant No. 1, 323 Ga.App. 801, 807(6), 748 S.E.2d 281 (2013) (citations and punctuation omitted). [T]o meet the standard for proving spoliation, the injured party must show that the alleged tortfeasor was put on notice that the party was contemplating litigation.

However, in order for the injured party to pursue a remedy for spoliation, the spoliating party must have been under a duty to preserve the evidence at issue. Whitfield v. Tequila Mexican Restaurant No. 1, 323 Ga.App. 801, 807(6), 748 S.E.2d 281 (2013). OCGA § 24–14–22 provides:

Because the spoliation of evidence may give rise to sanctions against the spoliator, including dismissal of the complaint, an initial determination must be made that the spoliator had a duty to preserve the evidence at the time it was destroyed. Whitfield v. Tequila Mexican Restaurant No. 1, 323 Ga.App. 801, 807 (6), 748 S.E.2d 281 (2013) ("A spoliation claim cannot be pursued unless the spoliating party was under a duty to preserve the evidence."), overruled on other grounds, Phillips , 297 Ga. at 398 (II), 774 S.E.2d 596.

Phillips v. Harmon, 297 Ga. 386, 393–394, 774 S.E.2d 596 (2015). See also Whitfield v. Tequila Mexican Restaurant No. 1, 323 Ga.App. 801, 807(6), 748 S.E.2d 281 (2013), overruled on other grounds, Harmon, 297 Ga. at 398, 774 S.E.2d 596. Of particular relevance here, “[the] trial court has wide discretion in resolving spoliation issues, and we will not disturb its ruling absent abuse.” Kitchens v. Brusman, 303 Ga. App. 703, 705(1), 694 S.E.2d 667 (2010).Here, the trial court found that: (1) the collision between the plaintiffs and the driver of the stolen vehicle occurred on January 6, 2009; (2) pursuant to Atlanta Police Department Policy Manual, Standard Operating Procedure 4.18.3 (1), audio recordings “are kept for approximately 120 days before being reused,” meaning that the recording would have been reused on or about May 6, 2009; (3) Loehle submitted ante litem notice to the City on June 26, 2009; and (4) the City received Loehle's ante litem notice on or about June 29, 2009. Loehle filed its civil action against the City on December 13, 2010. It was not until December 12, 2012, in an email from the City in response to

(Citations and punctuation omitted; emphasis in original.) Whitfield v. Tequila Mexican Restaurant No. 1, Inc., 323 Ga.App. 801, 807(6), 748 S.E.2d 281 (2013). See also Clayton County v. Austin–Powell, 321 Ga.App. 12, 17, 740 S.E.2d 831 (2013).

(Citations and punctuation omitted; emphasis in original.) Whitfield v. Tequila Mexican Restaurant No. 1, Inc., 323 Ga. App. 801, 807 (6) (748 SE2d 281) (2013). See also Clayton County v. Austin-Powell, 321 Ga. App. 12, 17 (740 SE2d 831) (2013).

Under Georgia law, " [a] spoliation claim cannot be pursued unless the spoliating party was under a duty to preserve evidence." Whitfield v. Tequila Mexican Rest. No. 1, 748 S.E.2d 281, 287 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013). In the slip-and-f all context, courts have held that "the injured party must show that the alleged tortfeasor was put on notice that the party was contemplating litigation."