Relying upon Pennsylvania Law, Federal District Court Held that Presence of Spill in Multiple Aisles of Store Was Not Enough to Establish Constructive Notice.

The plaintiff slipped and fell on a spilled liquid in the defendant-store. It was undisputed that the defendant did not have actual notice of the spill. Instead, the key issue was whether the defendant had constructive notice. 

In its motion for summary judgment, the defendant argued there was no evidence as to when the liquid came to be on the floor, the source of the liquid or how long the liquid was on the floor prior to the incident. The plaintiff counter-argued that the presence of the liquid in multiple aisles showed it was tracked, which established constructive notice. 

The federal district court rejected the plaintiff’s counter argument and held there was no evidence to suggest the presence of the liquid in multiple aisles was, indeed, due to tracking. The court found there was no evidence as to how long the liquid was on the floor prior to the incident. As such, the court held that a reasonable jury could not conclude that the defendant had constructive notice of the spill. The court granted the defendant motion for summary judgment. 

_{Case Law Alerts, 4th Quarter, October 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey 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 © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}