Falling Merchandise Injuries in Georgia Stores

Published Read 5 min read

On this page

A shopper struck by merchandise that falls from a shelf or stack raises a premises question that differs from a slip on a spill. In a spill case the dispute is how long the hazard sat on the floor. When the store’s own employees built the stack or display, the question shifts to what the store did and knew when it placed the goods.

What a Shopper Has to Show

A store that invites the public in owes shoppers ordinary care in keeping the premises safe (OCGA 51-3-1). Under Robinson v. Kroger Co., 268 Ga. 735 (1997), the shopper must show the store’s actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard and the shopper’s own lack of knowledge despite ordinary care. The fall or the injury alone establishes neither (Alterman Foods, Inc. v. Ligon, 246 Ga. 620 (1980)), so the shopper has to connect the injury to a particular hazard, such as a stack that was overloaded, leaning, or placed where it could be dislodged.

Proof in a Falling-Merchandise Case

A store’s constructive knowledge of a defective display can be shown in three ways: an employee was nearby and could easily have seen the problem, the problem existed long enough that a reasonable inspection would have found it, or similar incidents had happened before. In Warner v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., No. A12A2453 (Ga. Ct. App. Mar. 29, 2013), a shopper reaching for a dry-erase board on an end-cap display was struck when the bracket holding the boards gave way and the boards fell. The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the store: there was no evidence, from an expert or otherwise, that the misaligned bracket the shopper pointed to caused the failure, the store had a regular routine of inspecting the brackets, and there had been no similar incidents. A store’s inspection routine, its restocking records, and any reports of earlier falls are the kinds of records that bear on a falling-merchandise claim.

When the Store Created the Hazard

A business whose own employee creates a hazard is treated as knowing about it. In American Multi-Cinema, Inc. v. Brown, 285 Ga. 442 (2009), a theater employee set a “Wet Floor” sign in the exit path of a crowd; the sign fell over, and a patron’s foot caught on it. Because the theater’s own employee had put the sign there, the Supreme Court of Georgia treated the theater as having actual knowledge of it, declined to give warning devices special immunity, and left the remaining questions to the jury. A claim about a stack or display that the store’s employees built raises the question Brown answered for a sign: whether the store is charged with knowledge of a condition it created.

Displays and the Shopper’s Attention

Robinson held that a failure to look is not by itself a failure of ordinary care, and it clarified that when a shopper was not looking because of something in the store’s control that the store might have anticipated would divert attention, including a merchandise display the shopper would not have anticipated, the shopper has presented some evidence of reasonable care.

Crowded Aisles and Goods in Their Expected Place

The store’s knowledge is not assumed from the presence of goods alone. In Miller v. Dolgencorp, LLC, No. A25A1363 (Ga. Ct. App. Sept. 16, 2025), a customer walked for 15 to 20 minutes through aisles crowded with boxes and cases, and the customer’s pants caught on an open-lidded crate, causing a fall. The Court of Appeals held that the store lacked superior knowledge because the crate was where such goods could be expected, and it affirmed for the store.

For example, imagine a shopper hurt by boxes that slide off a display built by an outside vendor and stocked by store employees. A jury could assign fault to the store, the vendor, and the shopper. If it found $120,000 in damages and assigned 20 percent to the shopper, 50 percent to the store, and 30 percent to the vendor, the award would fall to $96,000, and the store would owe $60,000 and the vendor $36,000, each separately (OCGA 51-12-33(a), (b)).

Frequently Asked Questions

Can the store blame a vendor that built the display even if the vendor is not sued?
A jury may assign fault to people who were never sued, and a nonparty’s share counts when the shopper settled with it or a defendant gave notice at least 120 days before trial (OCGA 51-12-33(c), (d)(1)).

Who has to prove that the shopper was careless?
The store first. Under Robinson, the shopper’s burden of producing evidence about the shopper’s own care arises only after the store’s knowledge is established or assumed and the store has produced evidence that the shopper was negligent.

Can the store’s incident report be used as evidence?
Records kept in the regular course of a business, made at or near the time by or from a person with knowledge, can be admitted under the business records exception unless the source or circumstances show a lack of trustworthiness (OCGA 24-8-803(6)).

What if the shelving itself was defective?
The maker of the shelving can be liable in tort, without privity, to a person injured because the product was not merchantable and reasonably suited to its intended use when sold, subject to a ten-year limit from the first sale (OCGA 51-1-11(b)(1), (2)).

  • OCGA 51-3-1; Robinson v. Kroger Co., 268 Ga. 735 (1997); Alterman Foods, Inc. v. Ligon, 246 Ga. 620 (1980)
  • American Multi-Cinema, Inc. v. Brown, 285 Ga. 442 (2009)
  • Warner v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., No. A12A2453 (Ga. Ct. App. Mar. 29, 2013)
  • Miller v. Dolgencorp, LLC, No. A25A1363 (Ga. Ct. App. Sept. 16, 2025)
  • OCGA 51-12-33(a), (b), (c), (d)(1); OCGA 24-8-803(6); OCGA 51-1-11(b)(1), (2)

Disclaimer

This article provides general information about falling merchandise injuries under Georgia law. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Whether a store is liable depends on what it knew, who built the stack, what the shopper knew, and the specific facts. A person struck by falling merchandise should consult a licensed Georgia attorney promptly about the particular situation.

Related posts:

  1. College Campus Injury Claims in Georgia Whether a college is public or private decides which statutes govern an injury on its campus. A claim against a state institution runs through the Georgia Tort Claims Act, with......
  2. Boating and Watercraft Accident Claims in Georgia In a civil claim, Georgia's statutes treat a boat much as they treat a car: the owner of a watercraft "shall be liable for any tort caused by the operation......
  3. Facial Fractures and Disfigurement in Georgia Injury Cases A face that strikes a steering column, an airbag, or a windshield can leave an injury that outlasts the fracture itself: an asymmetric cheek, a scar across the lip, a......
  4. Child Dog Bite Injuries in Georgia: Facial Scarring and Lasting Trauma A dog bite to a child's face leaves a family with questions that play out over years: how the scar and the fear will change as the child grows, and......
  5. Georgia Personal Injury Statute of Limitations: Deadlines That Kill Claims Georgia sets the filing deadline by what was harmed and by who the defendant is. Injury to the person carries two years, loss of consortium and damage to property carry......
  6. Defective Car Seat Claims in Georgia: Child Restraint Failures and Product Liability When a child seat does not hold a child in a crash, a Georgia claim against its maker starts from the federal standard the seat had to meet and Georgia's......
  7. Appealing a Georgia Personal Injury Verdict A Georgia personal injury verdict that disappoints one side can be challenged in two stages: motions in the trial court that carry a 30-day deadline, and an appeal whose own......
  8. Defective Medical Devices in Georgia: Hip Implants, Pacemakers, and Product Liability The path an implanted device took to market shapes which state-law claims over its failure survive. A device that received the Food and Drug Administration's premarket approval is shielded from......
  9. Georgia’s 50% Bar Rule: How Comparative Negligence Affects Your Claim Georgia's 50 percent bar decides whether an injured person's award shrinks or disappears. If the trier of fact finds the injured person less than 50 percent responsible, the judge reduces......
  10. Herniated Disc Injuries from Georgia Car Accidents A herniated disc found after a crash raises one question before any other: did the collision cause it, or was the disc already wearing out? MedlinePlus describes both routes. A......
  11. Hospital Visitor Injury Claims in Georgia A visitor hurt in a hospital corridor, lobby, or parking area is not the patient, and Georgia law treats the visitor's claim as a premises claim rather than a claim......
  12. Dog Attacks on Delivery Workers in Georgia For a delivery worker bitten at a customer's door, the claim against the dog's owner depends first on what the owner knew about the dog and on the worker's legal......
  13. Aviation Accident Claims in Georgia: Pursuing Compensation for Plane Crashes and Air Travel Injuries After a plane crash, federal law decides several things a Georgia claim can and cannot do. Courts disagree over whether federal law supplies the standard of care in aviation safety.......
  14. Emergency Room Negligence in Georgia: When Rushed Care Causes Harm A patient hurt by care in a Georgia hospital emergency department faces a heavier burden than the ordinary medical malpractice plaintiff. Under OCGA 51-1-29.5, a physician or health care provider......
  15. Airport Shuttle Accidents: Hotel and Transit Van Claims The claim of a passenger hurt in an airport shuttle or a hotel van depends on the duty Georgia law places on a carrier of passengers and on who operated......
  16. Economic vs. Non-Economic Damages in Georgia Personal Injury Cases Georgia sorts the money in an injury claim with two pairs of labels that come from different statutes. General and special damages are distinguished in OCGA 51-12-2; economic and noneconomic......

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *