DANIELS v. DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC. et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
ROWENA DANIELS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC. d/b/a
DOLLAR TREE, and JOHN DOES #1-
3,
Defendants.
*
*
*
*
*
*
CASE NO. 4:24-cv-147 (CDL)
O R D E R
While 	shopping 	at 	a 	Dollar 	Tree 	Store, 	Rowena 	Daniels 	fell
after colliding with a freestanding shelf that was leaning against
a shelving unit. 	Daniels brings this renewal action under Georgia
premises 	liability 	law 	for 	personal 	injuries 	she 	sustained.
Pending 	before 	the 	Court 	is 	Dollar 	Tree’s 	motion 	for 	summary
judgment (ECF No. 13). 	For the reasons that follow, the motion is
denied.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
Summary 	judgment 	may 	be 	granted 	only 	“if 	the 	movant 	shows
that 	there 	is 	no 	genuine 	dispute 	as 	to 	any 	material 	fact 	and 	the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 	Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56(a). 	In 	determining 	whether 	a 	genuine 	dispute 	of 	material
fact exists to defeat a motion for summary judgment, the evidence
is viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary
Case 4:24-cv-00147-CDL Document 17 Filed 12/02/25 Page 1 of 6

2
judgment, 	drawing 	all 	justifiable 	inferences 	in 	the 	opposing
party’s favor. 	Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255
(1986). 	A fact is material if it is relevant or necessary to the
outcome of the suit. 	Id. at 248. 	A factual dispute is genuine if
the evidence would allow a reasonable jury to return a verdict for
the nonmoving party. 	Id.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Viewed 	in 	the 	light 	most 	favorable 	to 	Daniels, 	the 	record
reveals 	the 	following 	facts. 	On 	August 	11, 	2022, 	Daniels 	visited
a 	Dollar 	Tree 	store 	in 	Columbus, 	Georgia, 	to 	purchase 	sympathy
cards and pens. 	When she entered the store, Daniels proceeded to
an 	aisle 	which 	had 	cards 	on 	one 	side 	and 	pens 	on 	the 	other. 	In
doing 	so, 	Daniels 	walked 	past 	a 	separate 	shelving 	unit 	display
located between the main aisles of the store and the checkout area.
Daniels 	Dep. 	133:2-14; 	134:3-15 	(ECF 	No. 	15-2). 	She 	noticed 	a
Dollar Tree employee stocking shelves around this area.
Once 	on 	the 	card 	and 	pen 	aisle, 	Daniels 	spent 	a 	few 	minutes
reading 	different 	sympathy 	cards. 	Id. 	at 	57:21-23. 	She 	picked
out four or five cards and two or three pens, then left the aisle
the way she came and proceeded towards the checkout area. 	Id. at
57:23-25; 	136:25-137:7. 	Upon 	leaving 	the 	aisle, 	Daniels 	walked
into an object and fell. 	After her fall, she perceived this object
to be a beige metal shelf that had been leaning vertically against
the shelving unit. 	Id. at 129:2-24; 180:7-19.
Case 4:24-cv-00147-CDL Document 17 Filed 12/02/25 Page 2 of 6

3
Daniels 	did 	not 	see 	the 	leaning 	shelf 	before 	she 	fell. 	The
metal shelf she collided with and the shelving unit it was leaning
against were the same beige color. 	Id. at 161:24-162:2. 	Daniels
does 	not 	know 	if 	the 	beige 	metal 	shelf 	was 	leaning 	against 	the
shelving unit when she entered the store or if it had been placed
there 	during 	her 	shopping. 	Id. 	at 	135:11-15. 	Brandi 	Duncan, 	a
patron 	present 	at 	Dollar 	Tree 	when 	Daniels 	collided 	with 	the
object, 	testified 	that 	while 	Duncan 	was 	in 	the 	store, 	no 	Dollar
Tree 	employee 	leaned 	the 	beige 	metal 	shelf 	against 	the 	shelving
unit. 	Duncan 	Aff. 	¶ 	8, 	ECF 	No. 	13-3. 	After 	Daniels 	fell, 	the
shelving 	unit 	and 	the 	beige 	metal 	shelf, 	which 	had 	fallen 	to 	the
floor, were clearly visible to Daniels. 	Daniels Dep. 180:7-19.
DISCUSSION
Daniels 	brought 	a 	Georgia 	law 	premises 	liability 	claim
against Dollar Tree.1 	To recover on this claim, Daniels “must show
(1) that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the
hazard; and (2) that the plaintiff lacked knowledge of the hazard
despite the exercise of ordinary care due to actions or conditions
within 	the 	control 	of 	the 	owner.” 	John 	v. 	Battle 	Station, 	LLC,
877 S.E.2d 702, 705 (Ga. Ct. App. 2022) (quoting D’Elia v. Phillips
Edison 	& 	Co., 	839 	S.E.2d 	721, 	723 	(Ga. 	Ct. 	App. 	2020)). 	Here,
Dollar 	General 	argues 	that 	Daniels 	cannot 	establish 	the 	second
1 	Neither 	party 	disputes 	that 	Georgia 	law 	applies 	in 	this 	diversity
action where the events giving rise to the action occurred in Georgia.
Case 4:24-cv-00147-CDL Document 17 Filed 12/02/25 Page 3 of 6

4
element because the shelf was an open and obvious static condition
that Daniels knew about before she collided with it.
Where a plaintiff’s claim involves an open and obvious static
condition 	like 	the 	leaning 	shelf 	in 	this 	case, 	a 	plaintiff 	who
“has successfully negotiated [the static condition] on a previous
occasion 	. 	. 	. 	is 	presumed 	to 	have 	knowledge 	of 	it 	and 	cannot
recover for a subsequent injury resulting therefrom.” 	Id. at 706
(quoting 	Anderson 	v. 	Reynolds, 	502 	S.E.2d 	782, 	784 	(Ga. 	Ct. 	App.
1998)). 	A 	static 	condition 	is 	“one 	that 	does 	not 	change 	and 	is
dangerous only if someone fails to see it and walks into it.” 	Id.
at 705 (quoting D’Elia, 839 S.E.2d at 723). 	To preclude recovery,
the 	static 	condition 	must 	be 	“readily 	discernible 	to 	a 	person
exercising reasonable care for his own safety.” Id. at 706 (quoting
Martin v. Dunwoody-Shallowford Partners, 458 S.E.2d 388, 389 (Ga.
Ct. App. 1995)).
The Court denied Dollar Tree’s summary judgment motion on the
same 	issue 	in 	Daniels’s 	prior 	action 	against 	Dollar 	Tree.2
Nonetheless, 	Dollar 	Tree 	maintains 	that 	the 	beige 	metal 	shelf
leaning 	against 	the 	shelving 	unit 	was 	a 	static 	condition 	present
when 	Daniels 	walked 	past 	the 	shelving 	unit 	the 	first 	time 	on 	her
way to the card and pen aisle. 	Dollar Tree now relies upon McCrary
v. Bruno’s Inc., 464 S.E.2d 645 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995) to argue that
2 See Daniels v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., No. 4:23-cv-38 (CDL), 2024 WL
1807936 (M.D. Ga. Apr. 25, 2024).
Case 4:24-cv-00147-CDL Document 17 Filed 12/02/25 Page 4 of 6

5
Daniels 	was 	aware 	of 	the 	alleged 	hazardous 	static 	condition, 	and
her failure to navigate her way safely around it when leaving the
aisle prevents her recovery as a matter of law.
In 	McCrary, 	the 	plaintiff 	“took 	a 	step 	or 	two” 	past 	an 	area
in an aisle of a grocery store before turning around in the aisle
and 	tripping 	over 	a 	push 	broom 	leaning 	against 	a 	shelf 	in 	the
aisle. 	Id. at 646. 	The Georgia Court of Appeals reasoned that it
was 	a 	“physical 	impossibility” 	for 	an 	unseen 	employee 	to 	have
placed the broom behind the plaintiff “given the matter of seconds
it 	could 	have 	taken 	plaintiff 	to 	take 	a 	‘step 	or 	two 	past 	that
area.’” 	Id. at 648.
In its attempt to analogize Daniels’s situation to the one in
McCrary, 	Dollar 	Tree 	points 	to 	Brandi 	Duncan’s 	statement 	that 	no
employee 	moved 	a 	freestanding 	shelf 	in 	Daniels’s 	path 	of 	travel
while 	Duncan 	was 	in 	the 	store. 	Duncan’s 	affidavit 	does 	not
establish whether Duncan was present when Daniels walked past the
shelving 	unit 	the 	first 	time 	and 	thus 	does 	not 	serve 	as 	direct
evidence 	that 	the 	leaning 	shelf 	was 	present 	when 	Daniels 	first
passed the shelving unit area on her way to the card and pen aisle.
In 	light 	of 	Daniels’s 	testimony 	that 	she 	did 	not 	observe 	the
leaning 	shelf 	on 	her 	first 	pass 	and 	that 	she 	did 	not 	know 	if 	it
been 	placed 	there 	during 	the 	few 	minutes 	she 	spent 	browsing 	the
card 	and 	pen 	aisle, 	it 	is 	not 	a 	“physical 	impossibility” 	for 	an
employee to have placed the leaning shelf during those few minutes.
Case 4:24-cv-00147-CDL Document 17 Filed 12/02/25 Page 5 of 6

6
Instead, a reasonable jury could conclude based on this testimony,
along 	with 	Daniels’s 	testimony 	that 	she 	saw 	an 	employee 	stocking
shelves 	when 	she 	arrived, 	that 	the 	leaning 	shelf 	was 	not 	present
when she initially walked past the shelving unit.
Daniels also testified that after she fell, she noticed that
the 	shelf 	was 	the 	same 	beige 	color 	as 	the 	shelving 	unit 	it 	was
leaning 	against. 	The 	factfinder 	could 	thus 	conclude 	that 	the
leaning 	shelf 	blended 	in 	with 	the 	unit 	it 	was 	leaning 	against,
making it difficult to discern the alleged hazard. 	Based on that
additional 	evidence, 	the 	factfinder 	could 	conclude 	that 	a
reasonable shopper would not have noticed the hazard. 	Construing
the inferences from the circumstantial evidence in Daniels’ favor,
as 	the 	Court 	must 	do 	at 	this 	stage 	in 	the 	litigation, 	the 	Court
finds that genuine factual disputes exist on whether the shelf was
present when Daniels initially passed the shelving unit and whether
a reasonably careful shopper should have seen the stray shelf and
avoided it. 	The Court thus denies Dollar Tree’s summary judgment
motion.
CONCLUSION
For 	the 	foregoing 	reasons, 	Dollar 	Tree’s 	summary 	judgment
motion (ECF No. 13) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 2nd day of December, 2025.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
Case 4:24-cv-00147-CDL Document 17 Filed 12/02/25 Page 6 of 6