According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff visited a grocery store and went to use the lady’s restroom. While in the restroom, the Plaintiff allegedly slipped on some unknown substance and fell.
After the completion of discovery, the defense filed a Motion for Summary Judgment asserting that the Plaintiff had failed to offer any evidence to show how or when the alleged substance came to be on the floor and/or that the store employees had any actual or constructive notice of the condition.
The court agreed with the defense position. The court noted that the Plaintiff failed to offer any evidence as to what substance allegedly caused her to fall. The Plaintiff admitted that she did not notice any wet spots on the floor before she fell.
All the Plaintiff could state at her deposition was that she knew there was a liquid on the floot because her clothes were wet after the incident. However, the record revealed not only that it may have been raining on the day of the accident but also that, when the Plaintiff fell in the bathroom stall area, her arm and hand had gone into the toilet.
The court also noted that, even considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, the only conclusion is that the Plaintiff allegedly may have slipped on something wet. The court noted that it is not unusual for wet spots to be found in public restrooms, particularly around the toilet area. The court held that, without some indication of what the substance actually was, for example, from a leaking toilet or a spilled hand soap, it was difficult to determine from the record whether the condition that caused the Plaintiff was a long-standing condition as opposed to a transitory one.
In this regard, the court also noted that the Plaintiff failed to provide any evidence as to the length of time that the condition existed or if the Defendant store employees knew or should have known of the alleged condition.
The court also rejected the Plaintiff’s contention that the Defendant should have regularly checked the bathroom during the course of the day. The court noted that the Plaintiff did not produce any evidence in this regarding, including any chart under which employees would check off whether or not they had inspected the bathroom at certain times during day.
The Plaintiff also pointed to surveillance video of the store that shows that no employee entered the restroom for thirty (30) minutes prior to the Plaintiff’s fall.
The court also noted that, even considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, the only conclusion is that the Plaintiff allegedly may have slipped on something wet. The court noted that it is not unusual for wet spots to be found in public restrooms, particularly around the toilet area. The court held that, without some indication of what the substance actually was, for example, from a leaking toilet or a spilled hand soap, it was difficult to determine from the record whether the condition that caused the Plaintiff was a long-standing condition as opposed to a transitory one.
In this regard, the court also noted that the Plaintiff failed to provide any evidence as to the length of time that the condition existed or if the Defendant store employees knew or should have known of the alleged condition.
The court also rejected the Plaintiff’s contention that the Defendant should have regularly checked the bathroom during the course of the day. The court noted that the Plaintiff did not produce any evidence in this regarding, including any chart under which employees would check off whether or not they had inspected the bathroom at certain times during day.
The Plaintiff also pointed to surveillance video of the store that shows that no employee entered the restroom for thirty (30) minutes prior to the Plaintiff’s fall.
The court noted that while the video may show that no one attended to the restroom for thirty (30) minutes before the Plaintiff’s fall, that evidence does not translate to a finding that the Defendant was negligent in not cleaning the restroom that entire day.
Rather, the court noted that the surveillance video simply showed that the restroom was not checked for thirty (30) minutes before the Plaintiff’s fall. The court held that this did not mean that the Defendant was aware of, or should have been aware of, an alleged dangerous condition that went unattended.
For these reasons, and others noted in the Opinion, the court granted summary judgment to the Defendant store.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
It is noted that Daniel E. Cummins of Cummins Law was defense counsel in this matter.
For these reasons, and others noted in the Opinion, the court granted summary judgment to the Defendant store.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
It is noted that Daniel E. Cummins of Cummins Law was defense counsel in this matter.
Source of image: Photo by Juno Jo on www.unsplash.com.