Slip & Fall

California Court Finds Plaintiff Pursuing Premises Liability Claim Did Not Prove Property Owner Knew of Dangerous Condition of Stairwell

February 11, 2016 | Sharifi Firm, APC

Recently, the California Court of Appeal ruled in a negligence and premises liability lawsuit involving whether the defendant had notice of any dangerous condition. Premises liability claims require that in addition to showing the elements of a negligence claim (duty, breach, causation, and damages), there must also be a showing that the property owner knew or should have known of a dangerous condition. In this case, the court looked to the evidence presented by the plaintiff concerning the defendant’s notice.

Wilson Dante Perry brought this lawsuit for injuries suffered when he fell on an exterior stairway owned by defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA (Chase). Mr. Perry alleged that Chase had negligently designed, developed, operated, and maintained the stairway. This negligence, according to Mr. Perry, caused his fall and resulting injuries. Chase moved for summary judgment on the ground that Mr. Perry could not satisfy his burden of proving a dangerous condition existed on the property, or that Chase knew of such a dangerous condition.

Mr. Perry’s challenge to the summary judgment was based on the trial court’s error in excluding the expert declarations that he submitted in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Mr. Perry had not participated in the exchange of expert witness information prior to trial, nor had he designated any expert witness. The trial court sustained Chase’s evidentiary objections and granted the motion for summary judgment on the basis that Mr. Perry had not submitted evidence to dispute the facts that Chase breached no duty of care and had no knowledge of a dangerous condition.

California Court of Appeals Holds that Professional Negligence Claim Requires the Negligence Have Occurred in the Rendering of Professional Services

July 13, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent premises liability case, the California Court of Appeals reviewed a judgment in favor of a hospital. On appeal, the issue was whether the hospital’s conduct in mopping a floor and failing to warn, resulting in a slip and fall injury, consisted of professional negligence or ordinary negligence. Under the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA), a claim for professional negligence against a health care provider must be brought within three years from the date of the injury, or one year from the discovery of the injury, whichever came first. An ordinary negligence claim provides for a statute of limitations of two years.

The plaintiff in this case alleged that, while walking to her private bathroom in the defendant’s hospital room, she slipped and fell on a recently mopped floor. There were no warning cones, although the floor was wet. The plaintiff knew of the alleged negligence but did not file her complaint seeking damages for personal injury until nearly one year later.

The defendant moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiff’s action was time-barred. The trial court granted the motion and ruled the action was one for “professional negligence,” since the negligence was committed in the act of safeguarding a patient. The trial court found the claim fell under professional negligence because the defendant owed a duty to take appropriate measures for patient safety, rendering services for which the defendant is licensed.

California Court of Appeals Upholds Evidentiary Ruling in Grocery Store Slip & Fall Case

June 17, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

In a recent Court of Appeals decision, Sumrall v. Winco Foods, LLC, Cal. Ct. App. (2014), the court had before it an appeal in a grocery store premises liability action.

The plaintiff entered a Temecula grocery store operated by Winco following a rainy morning. After walking through a carpeted area, the plaintiff stepped onto a painted concrete floor within the store, at which point she purportedly slipped, fell, and thus suffered an injury.

The plaintiff filed suit, alleging the store was negligent in allowing the rain water to accumulate on the floor, which created a slippery and dangerous area.

California Court of Appeal Sides with Target in Slip and Fall Ruling

March 3, 2015 | Sharifi Firm, APC

The California Court of Appeals, 2nd District, recently reached a decision in the case of Torres v. Target Corporation, Cal. Ct. App., 2nd Dist. (2014), which demonstrates the base level of proof required in slip and fall personal injury cases.

In the case, the plaintiff slipped and fell in a Target store shortly after the store opened for business. While the plaintiff testified that she felt some sort of unknown item under her sandal that caused her to lose her balance and fall, she could not determine what object made her fall, since there was nothing in the general vicinity once she was able to stand back up.

Regarding a potential source of the purported object, the store had been combed over several times before the time that the incident occurred.