Appellate Court Upholds Summary Judgment on Slip and Fall based upon Lack of Notice of the Condition by the Defendant even without Testimony of the Defendant Employee who Conducted the Last Inspection

As a general rule, a store owner must have either actual or constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition or have been able by the exercise of ordinary care to discover the condition beforehand in order to be liable for such dangerous condition. (Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1205.)

In Gonzalez v. Interstate Cleaning Corporation, (Appellate Case No. E081120 certified for publication on 11/21/2024)the Plaintiff alleged a slip and fall on oranges on a floor at a shopping center. The Defendant was a janitorial company that was hired to regularly and periodically inspect the common area floors for liquid or debris.

The Defendant moved for Summary Judgment on the grounds that the company had in effect an employee training and monitoring system and that the Defendant’s employee actively inspected the floor approximately 8 to 9 minutes before Plaintiff’s fall. No declaration was provided by the Defendant’s employee that performed that inspection.

In opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff argued that it was a triable issue of fact whether Defendant actively and thoroughly inspected the area and whether Defendant had constructive knowledge of the spilled oranges. Plaintiff argued that Defendant did not introduce any direct evidence from the Defendant’s employee who performed the last inspection before the fall and that there is no authority that a store owner may prove an active inspection with evidence of an automated employee tracking system.

The Trial court granted Summary Judgment ruling that there was no triable issue of fact that the Defendant had actual or constructive knowledge to have cured the dangerous condition.

The appellate court affirmed the Summary Judgment. The appellate court determined that there is no case that they could find that has held that the Defendant store owner must introduce the testimony of the employee who conducted the last inspection. All that is required is that the store owner prove that it exercised reasonable care and inspected the floor within a sufficient period before the accident with a declaration from a knowledgeable person describing the Defendant’s regular maintenance practices and the record of actual inspections conducted around the time of the Plaintiff’s injury. (Peralta v. The Vons Companies, Inc. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5^th 1030, 1033.) Here the Defendant had a declaration from an employee about the training program, its maintenance and employee monitoring, and a record of the time that the employee inspected the affected area before the incident. The appellate court concluded that the Trial court properly ruled that the 8 to 9 minute interval between the last inspection and plaintiff’s fall was insufficient to demonstrate constructive knowledge as a matter of law.

This case demonstrates the importance in premises liability cases having in place a proper maintenance and inspection program and having good record keeping to establish the regular and routine inspection of areas at the premises. Even without a declaration from the individual that performed the last inspection, this court found sufficient evidence in the record to support Summary Judgment.