Case Number: BC643725 Hearing Date: June 04, 2018 Dept: 2

The unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendant, Alpha Beta Company dba Ralphs, filed on 1/17/18, is GRANTED. Defendant has met its burden of establishing that it is entitled to judgment in its favor based on the undisputed material facts proffered. Cal Code Civ Procedure § 437c(p)(2).

Defendant’s duty includes an obligation to make reasonable inspections of the property. Howard v. Omni Hotels Management Corp. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 403, 431. In order to impose liability on the owner for injury arising from a dangerous condition, “it must be shown that a dangerous condition existed and that the defendant knew or should have known of it. … No inference of negligence arises based simply upon proof of a fall upon the owner’s floor.” Vaughn v. Montgomery Ward & Co. (1950) 95 Cal.App.2d 553, 556.

Additionally, the Plaintiff must show that the landowner or occupier had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition, “or have been able by the exercise of ordinary care to discover the condition, which if known to him, he should realize as involving an unreasonable risk to invitees on his premises. His negligence in such cases is founded upon his failure to exercise ordinary care in remedying the defect after he has discovered it or as a man of ordinary prudence should have discovered it.” Oldenburg v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (1957) 152 Cal. App. 2d 733, 743.

Establishing the owners’ actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition is “key,” as the owners are not insurers of the Plaintiff’s personal safety. Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal. 4th 1200, 1206.

Constructive notice of the dangerous condition can be shown with evidence of a failure to inspect within a reasonable period of time so that a person exercising due care would have discovered and corrected the hazard. Ortega v. Kmart Corp. at 1212-1213.

There is no dispute that Defendant did not have actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition in a sufficient time prior to the incident to remedy it. The undisputed facts establish that on 11/21/15, Plaintiff slipped and fell at 11:07:43 after Plaintiff allegedly stepped on some produce that was on the floor while Plaintiff was shopping in the produce department. UF 1, 4.

It is undisputed that two sweeps and inspections were performed in the 1-hour period prior to Plaintiff’s accident in accordance with Defendant’s store policy. UF 6. This is documented by the surveillance video showing Andres Carrillo performing a sweep at 10:11:35 and a second sweep at 10:37:51, approximately 29 minutes before the incident occurred. UF 10. Both sweeps were logged into Defendant’s floor inspection report. UF 11.

Plaintiff does not have any evidence to dispute that these sweeps were unreasonable.

It is undisputed that Plaintiff does not have any non-speculative evidence to identify the source of the fallen produce. UF 13. Nor does Plaintiff have evidence that Defendant’s store employees had actual or constructive knowledge that the produce was on the floor prior to her slip. UF 14.

No store employees had prior knowledge of, or received a complaint about, or were aware of the presence of any substance or debris on the floor near where Plaintiff fell. UF 15. Plaintiff does not know how long the produce was on the floor prior to the incident. UF 17.

Plaintiff does not know of any comments by store personnel to the effect that anyone knew about the produce on the floor prior to the incident. UF 19.

Nor is Plaintiff aware of any facts that support the contention that Defendant had actual notice of dangerous condition. UF 20.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.