Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
P was shopping at D when he slipped on a puddle of milk on the floor adjacent to the refrigerator and suffered significant injuries to his knee, including ligament tears. P sued D for personal injuries. P testified he did not notice whether the puddled milk was fresh or odorous, warm or cold. P could not present evidence showing how long the milk had been on the floor. P claimed that because the evidence showed D had not inspected the premises in a reasonable period of time prior to the accident, a jury could infer the puddle was on the floor long enough for D's employees to have discovered and remedied it. D's manager testified that in light of the staffing, it would be 'hard for something [to] be on the floor for more than 15 or 30 minutes.' He did admit, that the milk could have been on the floor for as long as two hours. On the day of the accident, the manager testified that management would not have had any idea if the aisle where the accident occurred was inspected at any time during that day. D claimed that P failed to carry his burden of showing the milk puddle existed for a sufficient time to establish constructive notice to the store. P got the jury verdict and was awarded $47,200 in damages. D appealed. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. P could be relieved of his burden of showing how long the milk remained on the floor if he demonstrated the site had not been inspected within a reasonable period of time.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co