Getchell v. Jewelry
203 Cal. App. 4th 381, 136 Cal. Rptr. 3d 641, 2012 WL 376443 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When evidence supports a reasonable inference that a dangerous condition on a property was created by the owner's employees, the owner is deemed to have notice of the condition. The plaintiff is not required to provide independent proof of the owner's actual or constructive notice.
Facts:
- Tom Getchell worked as an independent contractor repairing jewelry at a Rogers Jewelry store.
- In an employee-only break room, a five-gallon bucket of jewelry cleaning solution with a rotating spigot was stored.
- The break room and the cleaning solution were accessible only to Getchell and Rogers Jewelry employees.
- Getchell had previously observed Rogers Jewelry employees using the spigot and leaving it positioned over the floor, which would allow any leak to drip onto the floor.
- Getchell always returned the spigot to a safe position over the bucket's lid after he used it.
- On September 13, 2006, after being away from the store for a day, Getchell returned to work.
- Within minutes of arriving, and before using the cleaning solution himself, Getchell slipped and fell in a pool of the solution on the break room floor.
Procedural Posture:
- Tom Getchell and his wife sued Rogers Jewelry in a California trial court for negligence, premises liability, and loss of consortium.
- Rogers Jewelry filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing Getchell could not prove it had actual or constructive notice of the cleaning solution on the floor.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Rogers Jewelry, concluding that Getchell's theory of how the spill occurred was speculation, not evidence.
- Tom Getchell, as the plaintiff-appellant, appealed the entry of summary judgment to the California Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the requirement for a plaintiff to prove a property owner had actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition apply when evidence supports a reasonable inference that the owner's employees created the condition?
Opinions:
Majority - Blease, J.
No. The requirement for a plaintiff to prove a property owner had actual or constructive notice does not apply where a reasonable inference can be drawn that the dangerous condition was created by the owner's employees. Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, knowledge of an employee's negligent act is imputed to the employer. Here, the evidence showed that the break room and the cleaning solution were under the exclusive control of Rogers Jewelry and its employees. Since Getchell presented evidence that he did not cause the spill and that only the defendant's employees had access during the relevant time, it is a reasonable inference—not mere speculation—that an employee created the hazardous condition by negligently misplacing the spigot. This inference is sufficient to impute notice to Rogers Jewelry, thereby precluding summary judgment in its favor.
Analysis:
This case clarifies an important exception to the notice requirement in premises liability law. It establishes that a plaintiff can defeat a summary judgment motion without direct evidence of notice if they can produce circumstantial evidence creating a reasonable inference that the defendant's own employees caused the hazard. This lowers the evidentiary burden for plaintiffs in cases where a dangerous condition exists in a non-public area under the defendant's exclusive control. The decision reinforces the principle that an employer's responsibility for its employees' actions (respondeat superior) can directly satisfy the notice element in a negligence claim.
Unlock the full brief for Getchell v. Jewelry