Case Number: BC542686??? Hearing Date: October 20, 2016??? Dept: 92
MARIA ASTORGA,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.
CARDENAS MARKETS, INC., et al.,
Defendant(s).
Case No.: BC542686
[TENATATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENTPlaintiff, Maria Astorga filed this action against Defendant, Cardenas Markets, Inc. for damages arising out of a slip and fall. At this time, Defendant moves for summary judgment on the complaint, contending it lacked actual or constructive knowledge that there was a slippery substance on the floor, and therefore Plaintiff cannot prevail in her claims against it.
?The owner of premises is not negligent and is not liable for an injury suffered by a person on the premises which resulted from a dangerous or defective condition of which the owner had no knowledge, unless the condition existed for such a length of time that if the owner had exercised reasonable care in inspecting the premises the owner would have discovered the condition in time to remedy it or to give warning before the injury occurred.? BAJI No. 8.20. The fact alone that a dangerous condition existed at the time the accident occurred will not warrant an inference that the defendant was negligent. There must be some evidence, direct or circumstantial, to support the conclusion that the condition had existed long enough for the proprietor, in the exercise of reasonable care, to have discovered and remedied it. Girvetz v. Boys? Market, Inc. (1949) 91 Cal.App.2d 827, 829.
Defendant herein presents evidence that Plaintiff lacks knowledge of how long the slippery substance was on the floor (fact 6), video surveillance shows a ?sweep? of the subject area approximately 13-14 minutes prior to the fall (fact 7), a small child is seen on the tape approximately nine minutes prior to the incident shaking a drink in his hand (fact 7), Defendant has a policy to conduct visual inspections every ten to fifteen minutes (fact 10), ?sweep sheets? are kept as records (fact 11), and sweep sheets show routine sweeps were conducted on the date of the incident and no substance was revealed (facts 12-13).
The foregoing is sufficient to meet the moving burden to show Defendant lacked actual or constructive knowledge of the substance on the floor. The burden therefore shifts to Plaintiff to raise a triable issue of material fact concerning notice. Any opposition to the motion was due on or before 10/06/16. As of 10/17/16, the Court has not received opposition to the motion. Plaintiff has therefore necessarily failed to meet her burden to raise a triable issue of material fact, and the motion is granted.