A Store Does Not Have a Duty to Constantly Monitor its Premises for Potential Hazards, and Any Alleged Failure to Monitor Is Not Enough to Establish Constructive Notice of a Hazard.

The plaintiff, a customer of the defendant’s store, slipped and fell on water located on the floor of the men’s restroom. After the defendant removed the case to federal district court, it filed a motion to dismiss. 

In deciding the motion to dismiss, the court noted that the plaintiff did not argue that the defendant created the alleged spill or that it had actual notice of the spill. The court held that there was no evidence as to the duration of the spill on the floor or any other facts to establish constructive notice. The court found that the defendant did not have a duty to constantly monitor the store for potential hazards and that any alleged failure to monitor was not enough to establish constructive notice. 

The court ruled that, as the plaintiff could not establish the required notice element, the defendant was entitled to 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.}