Skip to main content

Robinson v. Kroger Co.

Citations

  • 493 S.E.2d 403
  • 268 Ga. 735
  • 97 Fulton County D. Rep. 4314
  • 1997 Ga. LEXIS 752

How courts have described this case

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

  • recognizing that summary judgment may be appropriate where the plaintiff could not establish the defendant’s actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard
  • recognizing that summary judgment may be appropriate where the plaintiff could not establish the defendant’s actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard
  • holding that, to prevail on a slip-and- fall claim in Georgia, a plaintiff must prove, among other things, “(1) that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard; and (2
  • noting that issues such as whether the plaintiff exercised ordinary care “are generally not susceptible of summary adjudication
  • explaining that the distraction doctrine applies to conduct or displays that are “of such a nature that the defendant might have anticipated that it would divert an invitee’s attention”
  • the “fundamental basis for an owner or occupier’s liability” under OCGA § 51-3-1 is “that party’s superior knowledge of the hazard encountered by the plaintiff”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Benham, Hunstein, Fletcher

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

411 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

89 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Robinson v. Kroger Co.

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.