DOYLE, Judge.

Letha Williams brought a personal injury action against Capitol Corporate Cleaning, Inc. ("Capitol"), alleging that Capitol was negligent in performing cleaning services at Williams's workplace, where she was injured after a slip and fall. Following a jury trial resulting in a verdict in favor of Capitol, Williams appeals from the trial court's denial of her motion for new trial. She contends that the trial court erred by (1) improperly instructing the jury, (2) entering a judgment that was unsupported by the evidence, and (3) allowing Capitol to present a closing argument after it waived argument. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

Williams's complaint alleged that while she was an employee at the corporate offices of a hotel group, she walked through a computer tape storage library and slipped on a foreign substance on the floor, causing injuries to her hands, knees, and back. She reported the injury to her supervisor, sought treatment at a hospital, and ultimately required three knee surgeries. According to the complaint and Williams's testimony at trial, Capitol, an independent contractor hired to perform routine cleaning at the facility, had created the slick spot in the floor with an aerosol furniture polish. During cross-examination of Williams, Capitol's attorney challenged her about pre-existing pain and swelling in her injured knee. Capitol emphasized this during closing argument and also argued about the speculative nature of the evidence as to the cause of the slick spot.

Following a jury verdict in favor of Capitol, Williams filed a motion for new trial, which was denied, giving rise to this appeal.

1. Williams contends that the trial court erred in its charge to the jury. We discern no reversible error based on the arguments urged on appeal.

(a) Williams first argues that the trial court erred by charging the jury as to the law on premises liability, i.e., owner/occupier liability because her claim alleged simple negligence on the part of the cleaning service—not the owner or occupier of the premises. Williams correctly points out that the trial court gave the charge over her initial objection and that the charge was likely to confuse the jury. Nevertheless, after Williams subsequently objected to the charge as given, the trial court sustained the objection and offered to re-instruct the jury to disregard that erroneous instruction. In response, Williams's trial counsel stated, "Okay. That's fine." The curative instruction was given and the record reflects no other objection or motion for mistrial thereafter. Under these circumstances, this enumeration presents nothing to review.1

(b) Williams also challenges the following instruction given by the trial court: "Where the defendant is an independent contractor hired to perform certain janitorial services, the defendant has no independent duty to inspect the premises for safety of invitees on the premises." As it did in the trial court, Capitol argues that this instruction was an accurate statement of law as stated in Greene v. Piedmont Janitorial Svcs.2 Williams, in turn, argues that reliance on Greene is misplaced because it was a premises liability case. On the contrary, Greene addressed a scenario analogous to this one, in which a plaintiff sued the janitorial service at her workplace, alleging that it negligently "applied an excessive amount of cleaning products to the floor."3 In light of the contractor's lack of a duty akin to that of an owner/occupier under OCGA § 51-3-1, this Court affirmed a directed verdict as to the theory of liability predicated on the janitorial service's failure to inspect the premises.4

Here, the same rule applied, and Capitol, as an independent contractor, did not have an independent duty as an owner/occupier to inspect the premises for the safety of the employer's invitees. As in Greene, Williams's theory of recovery was predicated on her allegation that Capitol negligently applied or spilled furniture polish on the floor in a way that caused her to slip and fall. The alleged liability did not arise from a failure to perform a duty to inspect, but rather from Capitol's alleged negligence in cleaning the premises. Thus, the challenged jury instruction was applicable to this case and an accurate statement of law.5 Accordingly, we discern no reversible error.

(c) Williams next challenges the following instruction given by the trial court:

Williams contends that the instruction was irrelevant and duplicative.

We note as an initial matter that Williams fails to identify in the record any duplicate instruction on nominal damages, and we have found none. Nevertheless, "[m]ere repetition of a principle of law will not authorize a reversal unless it appears from the charge as a whole that there was such undue emphasis as to result in an unfair statement of the law."6 We find no undue emphasis here.

Further, there was evidence that Williams had prior problems with her injured knee. Thus, the charge was relevant to the extent that the jury could have found that her subsequent slip and fall caused only nominal difficulty with her knee—with most of the difficulty being caused by the pre-existing condition. Finally, we note that the instruction given essentially tracks the language of the pattern charge on nominal damages.7 Under these circumstances, we discern no reversible error.

(d) Williams also contends, in a purely conclusory argument citing no authority, that the following instruction was erroneous as irrelevant and duplicative:

This instruction is a correct statement of law,8 it was applicable, there was no undue emphasis, and Williams fails to demonstrate how the charge warrants reversal.

(e) Williams also contends that the trial court erred by giving the following instruction: "When a party offers himself as a witness in his own behalf, his testimony should be construed more strongly against him if it is vague or uncertain." This charge was requested by Capitol, withdrawn, but nevertheless given by the trial court. This appears to be an unintentional oversight by the trial court, and the charge, although with some legal basis,9 was not appropriate in this case. Nevertheless, we discern no reversible error here because, "[a]n inapplicable jury instruction is not grounds for reversal where it does not appear that the inapplicable part was calculated to mislead the jury, erroneously affected the verdict or was prejudicial to the rights of the complaining party."10 Even as characterized by Williams, her testimony was largely clear and straightforward, not vague or uncertain, and the relevant facts were essentially undisputed. Thus, her testimony was not susceptible to adverse construction factually, and the instruction did not demand a finding against Williams. It was a matter for the jury to weigh the evidence, evaluate causation, and allocate liability. Based on the record in this case, the challenged jury instruction did not affect that process such that a reversal is required.11

(f) Williams next challenges the trial court's failure to give a jury charge on a defendant's burden to prove the defense of alternate causation.12 However, the general charge on the burden of proof was given, and Williams did not submit a written request to charge on the defendant's burden to prove alternate theories of causation. "[I]f the plaintiff was not satisfied with the general charge on the subject of the burden of proof, it was incumbent upon [her] to make [a] timely written request to charge on the shifting of the burden, if [she] desired such [a] charge."13 Therefore, this enumeration presents no basis for reversal.

2. Williams also contends that the trial court erred by denying her motion for new trial because Capitol presented no evidence in opposition to her claims. As an initial matter, this argument is belied by the record, which contains testimony elicited by Capitol on cross-examination of Williams, regarding problems with her knee prior to the slip and fall at issue here. Further, Williams had the burden of proof at trial, and the jury was entitled to draw its own conclusions and inferences based on the evidence presented.

This is not such a case.

3. Finally, Williams argues that the trial court erred by allowing Capitol the opportunity to present a closing argument because Capitol allegedly waived its argument. The record shows, however, that there was apparently a brief miscommunication about whether Williams herself was waiving argument, and upon her clarification, the trial court allowed both Williams and Capitol to present closing arguments in regular order. During what was a clear misunderstanding, Capitol neither sought nor gained a tactical advantage, and we discern no abuse of discretion in the trial court's handling of the closing arguments.15

Judgment affirmed.

MILLER, P.J., and ELLINGTON, J., concur.