In Robinson v. Kroger, the Supreme Court of Georgia reaffirmed that an invitee can recover in a slip-and-fall action when (1) the owner/ occupier had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard; and (2) plaintiff lacked knowledge of the hazard despite the exercise of ordinary care. However, in a drastic departure from existing case law, the court held that the evidentiary burden regarding plaintiff's knowledge of the hazard and exercise of reasonable care does not shift, for the purpose of summary judgment, until the defendant establishes negligence on the part of the plaintiff.
Shelton, Morgan W.
"Robinson v. Kroger: A Leveling of the Field or Fatal Fall for Summary Judgment?,"
Mercer Law Review: Vol. 50
, Article 9.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.mercer.edu/jour_mlr/vol50/iss2/9