Thought Leadership

The plaintiff raised a negligence claim against a retail store based upon a slip and fall incident. The plaintiff alleged that she slipped and fell in an aisle of the store as a result of water on the floor. The plaintiff did not see any liquid on the floor before she fell, she could not specify the amount of liquid, and she could not specify how long the liquid existed on the floor. Video surveillance from an hour before the incident showed other customers walking through the aisle without any issues and the condition was not visible from the video. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment.

The court held that there was no evidence of actual notice of the condition. Relying upon Pennsylvania law, the court reasoned, “[a] plaintiff may prove actual notice by showing that the store owner was warned about the condition, or that the condition is one which the owner knows has recurred frequently.”

The court further reasoned that “‘for actual notice to be imputed to a defendant on the basis of a recurring condition, however, such a condition must have recurred in a ‘pervasive or obvious manner.’” According to the court, the plaintiff identified no evidence that the store knew about the presence of water in the aisle where the incident occurred or that water was present on a recurring and frequent basis that would allow actual notice to be imputed on the store.

Additionally, the court held that there was no evidence of constructive notice. Using Pennsylvania law, the court reasoned that “‘one of the most important factors to be taken into consideration is the time elapsing between the origin of the defect or the hazardous condition and the accident.’” The court noted that “[state] and federal courts applying Pennsylvania law in this area have consistently required a plaintiff ‘to provide some proof as to the length of time a spill existed on the floor to establish constructive notice.’”

The district court further noted that “absent any evidence of the duration of time the spill remained on the floor prior to the accident, constructive notice cannot be inferred.” The court ruled that the plaintiff could not establish when the alleged condition began, which was fatal to her claim of constructive notice. The court held that “speculation about how long the condition may have existed before the start of the surveillance video is insufficient to create a material issue of fact regarding construction notice.” The court further held that “there is a lack of any evidence in the record about the probable cause of the liquid on the floor and any opportunity that [the store] had to remedy it.” The district court granted the store’s motion for summary judgment.