Kroger Co. v. Brooks

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding jury questions whether an employee restocking merchandise several aisles away was in the “immediate vicinity” and whether the store had an opportunity to discover mousse on the floor
• “Both OCGA § 9-11-50 and § 9-11-56 which deal with motions for summary judgment, are similar and are governed by similar criteria, so that opinions as to one have application to the other.”
• “Both OCGA § 9-11-50 and § 9-11-56 which deal with motions for summary judgment, are similar and are governed by similar criteria, so that opinions as to one have application to the other.”
• “[I]n the absence of evidence [that] a reasonable inspection would have discovered the foreign substance, no inference can arise that defendant’s failure to discover the [defect] was the result of its failure to inspect.”
• although plaintiff did not know how long the mousse had been on the floor prior to her fall, fact issue existed as to whether the manager and cashier were in the immediate vicinity and in a position to see the mousse on the floor at various times between in a three-and-a-half-hour period

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).