MILLER, P. J., MCFADDEN, P. J., and ANDREWS, J.
MILLER, PRESIDING JUDGE
case arises from a slip-and-fall accident inside one of
Bi-Lo, LLC's grocery stores. On July 1, 2015, Mary Green
("Mary") was injured when she slipped on ice tea
that had spilled in one of the aisles of the store. A jury
awarded her and her husband, Ernest Green, damages as a
result. Bi-Lo appeals, contending that the trial court erred
in (1) denying its motion for directed verdict because it did
not have a reasonable amount of time to clean the spill prior
to Mary's fall; (2) refusing to give a jury charge as to
the reasonable time permitted to clean the spill after notice
of it; and (3) allowing the Greens's counsel to reference
inadmissible hearsay in closing despite the court's prior
order excluding hearsay. We conclude that the trial court
erred in denying Bi-Lo's motion for directed verdict.
Accordingly, we reverse.
review a trial court's denial of a motion for directed
verdict under the "any evidence" standard.
F.A.F. Motor Cars, Inc. v. Childers, 181 Ga.App. 821
(354 S.E.2d 6) (1987).
viewed, the evidence shows that the Greens were shopping for
lunch at the Bi-Lo grocery store on July 1, 2015. As Mary
entered the beverage aisle to get sodas, she slipped on ice
tea that had spilled on the floor and fell. Prior to
Mary's fall, a different customer notified a store
manager of the spill in the beverage aisle. This spilled tea
created a condition which Bi-Lo admits was unsafe. Pursuant
to company policy, the manager placed a caution cone in front
of the spill to warn customers of the condition. The customer
who notified the manager of the spill placed an additional
caution cone near the spill. These cones were 3-feet tall,
yellow, and had the words "caution" and "wet
floor" written on them. Also pursuant to company policy,
after marking off the spill with the cones, the manager then
left the area to instruct a courtesy clerk to clean the
admittedly was not looking at the floor as she walked down
the aisle because her eyes were directed up towards the sodas
she wanted to purchase. She did not notice the cones or the
spill prior to her fall even after she successfully walked
past the first cone. According to surveillance camera footage
from inside the store, the time between the manager receiving
notice of the spill and learning that Mary had fallen was
approximately 75 seconds.
Greens sued Bi-Lo for negligence and loss of consortium. At
trial, following the close of the Greens's evidence, and
again at the close of all evidence, Bi-Lo moved for a
directed verdict on the ground that it could not be liable as
a matter of law because it did not have a reasonable time
after notice of the spill to exercise care in cleaning it up.
The trial court denied the motion both times. Following a
jury verdict in the Greens's favor,  Bi-Lo appealed.
Bi-Lo contends that the trial court erred in denying its
motion for directed verdict because, as a matter of law, it
did not have a reasonable amount of time to clean the spill.
there is no conflict in the evidence as to any material issue
and the evidence introduced, with all reasonable deductions
therefrom, shall demand a particular verdict, such verdict
shall be directed." OCGA § 9-11-50 (a).
owner or occupier of land has a duty to exercise ordinary
care to keep the premises and approaches of its premises and
approaches safe for invitees. OCGA § 51-3-1.
[t]he owner/occupier is not required under OCGA § 51-3-1
to warrant the safety of all persons from all things, but to
exercise the diligence toward making the premises safe that a
good business person is accustomed to use in such matters.
This includes taking reasonable precautions to protect
invitees from dangers foreseeable from the arrangement or use
of the premises.
(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Campbell v. Savannah
Motors, Inc., 311 Ga.App. 460, 461 (1) (716 S.E.2d 534)
recover in a slip-and-fall case, the plaintiff must
"prove that: (1) the defendant had actual or
constructive knowledge of the hazard; and (2) the plaintiff,
despite exercising ordinary care for his or her own personal
safety, lacked knowledge of the hazard due to the
defendant's actions or to conditions under the
defendant's control." (Citation and footnote
omitted.) American Multi-Cinema, Inc. v. Brown, 285
Ga. 442, 444 (2) (679 S.E.2d 25) (2009).
Bi-Lo had actual knowledge of the spilled tea once the
manager received notice from the other customer. This spilled
tea created a condition which Bi-Lo admits was unsafe.
Nonetheless, Georgia law recognizes that "absent some
reason to be on notice of the likelihood of a given hazard
arising, a proprietor is generally permitted a reasonable
time after notice of a hazardous condition to exercise care
in correcting such condition." Pickering Corp. v.
Goodwin, 243 Ga.App. 831, 832-833 (534 S.E.2d 518)
(2000). In Pickering, it was undisputed that the
hazardous spill occurred only 90 seconds before the
plaintiff's fall and that the mall learned of the spill
almost immediately after it happened. Id. at 833.
This Court found no evidence to create a jury issue as to the
mall's conduct in the very brief window of time after
receiving notice of the spill. Id. As