Sacramento Woman Sues Supermarket For Slip And Fall, Part 1 of 12

(Please 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.)

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, SaveMart, Walmart, or Whole Foods.

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Plaintiffs Maggie and Charles Black oppose XYZ Market’s summary judgment motion on two primary grounds:

First: There were multiple XYZ Market employees working on the floor near the area where plaintiff slipped and fell on a wet substance, both at and before the time of plaintiffs fall. One of these employees was five to six feet from the substance on which Maggie Black slipped. XYZ Market’s written standards state that it is every employee’s responsibility to detect and correct slip and fall hazards, not just the low level clerks who do the sweep log.

Plaintiff alleges the various employees working in the area of her fall failed their responsibility. There is a triable issue of fact whether these employees used reasonable care in their failure to detect and wipe up the wet area on which plaintiff fell. A jury could also find that these employees actually created the condition through their restocking activities, in which case notice to XYZ Market is presumed. For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Second: XYZ Market representatives told Charles Black that there was videotape of the area where plaintiff Maggie Black fell, and that they were reviewing the tape. Once litigation commenced, XYZ Market stated that it had no videotape.

Plaintiff alleges that there is a triable issue whether XYZ Market has negligently or intentionally spoliated evidence, and that a jury could reach an adverse inference as to liability based on the loss or intentional destruction of the videotape.

For these primary reasons, and others stated in this Opposition, the Court should deny the motion. (See Part 2 of 12.)

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Contact Information