The adequacy of monitoring procedures are irrelevant and insufficient to defeat motion for summary judgment when there is no evidence that defendant had notice of hazardous condition.

The plaintiff, a business invitee, slipped and fell on a wet substance while she ascended stairs in the lobby of the defendant-hotel. After her fall, she was able to see a trail of liquid on the floor from the stairway to the elevator bank -- she did not know what created the condition or how long it had been on the floor. The plaintiff raised a negligence claim against the defendant-hotel. 

The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment and argued the plaintiff failed to establish that they had actual or constructive notice of the liquid. The district court granted the motion. In ruling on the motion for summary judgment, the district court found that the plaintiff failed to put forth any evidence to show that the condition was one that the defendant knew had frequently recurred and, thus, a jury could not infer that the defendant had actual notice. The district court also held that, as the plaintiff did not offer any evidence to show how long the liquid was present prior to her fall, the plaintiff could not establish constructive notice. The district court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the defendant’s failure to adequately monitor the area was sufficient to defeat the motion for summary judgment. The district court reasoned that adequacy of any monitoring policy is only relevant after it has been established that the defendant had constructive notice of the hazardous condition. The district court held that any questions relative to the adequacy of the defendant’s monitoring procedures were irrelevant and, thus, insufficient to defeat a summary judgment. 
 

^{Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, April 2022 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin 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 © 2022 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}