Judge hears dueling arguments over whether a stray step stool was a "static" hazard in shopper's fall

A Clayton County State Court hearing in a premises-liability case focused on whether a step stool that a shopper says caused her to fall was a removable “static” hazard or a jury question about how and when it was placed. Edward Alo, appearing for Cerrito Westernwear, urged the court to grant summary judgment under Georgia law, arguing that discovery and deposition testimony show the plaintiff never identified the stool as hidden or obscured and that prior traversal would impute knowledge to the shopper under the prior-traversal doctrine.

Alo told the court that the store’s evidence shows the stool was an open condition that an ordinary shopper could have seen and that the plaintiff’s statements were speculative. “Speculation is not enough to survive a summary judgment motion,” defense counsel told the judge, citing Georgia authorities and case law on static conditions and the distraction exception.

Plaintiff counsel countered that the record contains disputed testimony about how long the stool had been in position and whether employees moved it during the plaintiff’s visit. The plaintiff’s attorney said the employee who could have testified about placement admitted she did not know who put the stool there, and argued a jury should decide whether the condition was hidden or temporally brief enough to be non-static.

The court questioned counsel about whether it was customary for customers to have attention drawn to upper-body merchandise in the store (which could leave floor items less visible) and whether the plaintiff had been carrying a large bag that might have obstructed her view. The judge did not announce a ruling in court and directed counsel to make any additional filings or citations the court requested before issuing an order.

The hearing turned on well-established Georgia premises-liability doctrines: open-and-obvious/static condition, the distraction exception, and the prior-traversal rule. Both sides cited appellate and federal decisions applying those doctrines; defense argued there is no evidence of obstruction or distraction sufficient to overcome the static-condition doctrine, while plaintiff argued disputed evidence on timing and employee placement of the stool precludes summary judgment.