The Sufficiency of a Store’s Inspection and Maintenance Policies Are Only Relevant After Establishment of Notice of the Hazardous Condition.

The plaintiff, a customer at the defendant’s store, slipped and fell on a puddle located on the floor of the store’s restroom. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing it did not have sufficient notice of the water on the floor. In her response in opposition, the plaintiff argued that, not only was there notice, but also that the defendant breached its duty to inspect the property by not having a formal inspection protocol. 

In deciding the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the federal district court held that, as the defendant had reasonable preventative measures in place and wet floors were not a problem at the store or the status quo of the store, there was no evidence the defendant had actual notice of the puddle prior to the incident. The court also held that there was no constructive notice, as there was no evidence as to how the puddle occurred, how long the puddle was present prior to the incident, no evidence of tracks through the puddle, and no evidence of dirt or dust contained within the puddle. 

The court further held that, as the defendant did not owe a duty to the plaintiff (since there was no actual or constructive notice), the defendant’s inspection protocols were irrelevant. Since the defendant did not have notice of the condition, it did not have a duty to exercise reasonable care to remedy it. As such, the court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

_{Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}