It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this slip and fall case could just as easily occur at any of the supermarkets in the area, such as Safeway, Raley’s, Bel Air, Save Mart, Walmart, or Whole Foods.
(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury case and its proceedings.)
THIS COURT SHOULD GRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE PLAINTIFF CANNOT ESTABLISH THAT DEFENDANT BREACHED ITS DUTY OF CARE AND/OR THAT DEFENDANT HAD ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION.
It is well established under California law that an owner or occupier of land is not strictly liable for injuries occurring on its premises, and is not an insurer of the safety of persons on its premises. (Witkin, Summary of California Law (9th Ed.) Tort 927.) An owner of property has a duty to exercise ordinary care to maintain the property to avoid exposing others to an unreasonable risk of harm. BAJI 8.01; Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108.
Plaintiff must establish the elements of duty, breach of that duty, causation, and damages in order to recover damages under causes of action for negligence and/or premises liability (Restatement 2nd of Torts at 281; Brooks v. Eugene Burger Management Corp. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1611,1619).
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
No suggestion of negligence/premises liability arises from the mere occurrence of a fall. American Employers Insurance Company v. Smith (1980) 105 Cal.App.3d 94,101. Plaintiff has the burden of producing evidence of actual notice to Defendant of the dangerous condition, or that the alleged dangerous condition existed for a sufficient time to provide Defendant with constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition. Id. Perez v. Ow (1962) 200 Cal.App.2d 559, 581. (See Part 7 of 9.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.