Defendant Stanford Hospital & Clinics (“Defendant”) moves for summary judgment and, in the alternative, summary adjudication of the Complaint filed by plaintiff Lisa Rosillo (“Plaintiff”).

Defendant’s objections to evidence are OVERRULED for failure to comply with Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1354(c).

Defendant provides the following relevant evidence. On May 19, 2012, Plaintiff was at Defendant to visit her fiancé’s mother, who was an inpatient in Defendant’s Intensive Care Unit. (Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of Defendant Stanford Hospital & Clinics’ Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative Summary Adjudication Pursuant to C.C.P. §437c (“UMF”), No. 1.) Plaintiff was accompanied by her fiancé, Pedro Cervantes. (UMF, No. 2.) Plaintiff had been seated in the cafeteria for approximately 30 minutes to an hour when she stood up and began walking her garbage to a nearby trash can. (UMF, No. 3.) Plaintiff alleges she slipped and fell in a puddle of liquid near the garbage bins. (UMF, No. 6.) Security Officer Gary Silva was dispatched and responded to Plaintiff’s fall. (UMF, Nos. 15-16.) By the time Officer Silva arrived at the scene, a temporary cafeteria worker, Rocio Sanchez, had cleaned up the liquid on the floor and had placed a yellow caution sign on the floor by the trash cans. (UMF, No. 17.) Sanchez reported to Officer Silva that she had cleaned up approximately six ounces of soda from the floor from the area where Plaintiff claimed to have fallen. (UMF, No. 18.)

Defendant’s own evidence shows that there was liquid on the floor in the area where Plaintiff allegedly fell. Defendant does not dispute the existence of this dangerous condition. Rather, Defendant argues that (1) it did not create the condition, so did not have actual knowledge of the condition, and (2) it did not have notice of the condition.

Even if Defendant had no actual notice of the spilled soda, Defendant can be liable if it had constructive notice. Plaintiff submits evidence that Defendant failed to inspect, clean, or monitor the self-serve cafeteria for approximately one hour prior to the incident. (Opp. UMF, No. 21.) Defendant argues that Plaintiff testified at her deposition that she was only in the cafeteria for approximately half an hour. Even if this is true, however, whether or not Defendant should have inspected the cafeteria within that half hour time period and discovered the spill is a question of fact. “Whether a dangerous condition has existed long enough for a reasonably prudent person to have discovered it is a question of fact for the jury, and the cases do not impose exact time limitations.” (Ortega v. Kmart Corp., supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 1207.) Consequently, there is a triable issue of material fact as to whether Defendant had constructive notice of the spilled soda. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is DENIED.