This appeal arises from a personal injury suit filed by Allison Daniel Means as a result of injuries she received when she fell in a Marshalls' dressing room. Means contends on appeal that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment to Marshalls. For reasons that follow, we affirm. in order to recover for injuries sustained in a slip-and-fall action, an invitee must prove (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/occupier. Robinson also lightened the evidentiary load placed upon slip-and-fall plaintiffs opposing a motion for summary judgment by requiring a defendant to produce evidence showing negligence on the part of the plaintiff before the plaintiff is required to produce rebuttal evidence on this issue. Id. at 748. On appeal from the grant of summary judgment, this Court conducts a de novo review of the record, construing the evidence and all inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Maddox v. Southern Engineering Co., 231 Ga. App. 802, 803 ( 500 SE2d 591) (1998). Viewed in this light, the record shows that on a Sunday afternoon, Means entered a Marshalls' dressing room with her fiance's four-year-old daughter, Megan. An attendant at the entrance to the dressing room monitored the number of clothing items Means took into the dressing room. When Means and Megan entered a dressing room, Means noticed between five and seven pieces of "tags and garment paraphernalia" on the floor of the dressing room. They were not "a huge obstacle," and Means was not concerned about tripping over them. Megan tried on clothes first and walked out of the dressing room several times to show them to her father. Means accompanied her out of the dressing room one time. She did not tell the attendant about the garment debris in her dressing room. When Megan completed trying on her clothing, Means tried on a pair of shorts and told Megan to sit in the dressing room while she showed her fianc) the shorts. As she exited the dressing room, Means saw Megan begin "to get up" and the dressing room door starting to swing back toward her. when she tried to reach for Megan and prevent the door from hitting her, she slipped on the garment debris in the dressing room and fell. Means testified that she did not know whether she crossed over this garment debris in her previous trip out of the dressing room with Megan before her fall. In this case, Marshalls met its evidentiary burden under Robinson, supra, by pointing to evidence showing Means had actual knowledge of the debris that caused her to slip and fall. Means responds with the argument that, while she may have known that the garment debris was on the floor of the dressing room, she did not subjectively perceive that it might cause her to fall and summary judgment was therefore inappropriate. 1. The cases relied upon by Means to support this argument are distinguishable because in each of these cases, the particular hazard that caused the plaintiff's injury was either hidden or outside the realm of an ordinary person's knowledge. 1 In this case, the hazard, garment debris in plain view on a dressing room floor, was one which any person with ordinary, common sense would recognize as something that might cause a person to trip, slip, or fall. The trial court properly granted summary judgment to Marshalls based upon Means' actual knowledge of the garment debris. See Hall v. J. H. Harvey Co., 242 Ga. App. 315 (529 SE2d 444) (2000); McCoy v. West Bldg. Materials &c., 232 Ga. App. 620, 622 ( 502 SE2d 559) (1998). 2. Means also contends summary judgment should not have been granted because she was distracted by the "emergency situation involving her step-daughter." We find no merit in this argument because Means had actual knowledge of the garment debris before the alleged distraction occurred. See McCoy, supra, 232 Ga. App. at 622. See also Robinson, supra, 268 Ga. at 744 (1) (a). 3. Our holdings in Divisions 1 and 2 render Means' remaining enumerations of error moot. Hendrick & Hunter, Robert J. Hunter, Brian K. Jackson, Drew, Eckl & Farnham, Andrew B. Koplan, for appellant. | 
