Hale v. Safeway Stores, Inc.
1954 Cal. App. LEXIS 1572, 129 Cal. App. 2d 124, 276 P.2d 118 (1954)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a premises liability case, a store owner may be held to have constructive notice of a dangerous condition if there is sufficient circumstantial evidence, such as a lack of inspection for a prolonged period in a high-risk area, for a jury to infer that the owner should have discovered the hazard in the exercise of reasonable care.
Facts:
- On a busy Saturday afternoon, Helen Hale was shopping at a Safeway store.
- During the 30 to 45 minutes Hale was in the store, she did not observe any employees in the fruit and vegetable section.
- The store manager was in his office for 15 to 30 minutes before the accident, and all other available employees, including the one in charge of produce, were working at the checkout stands.
- After getting in the checkout line, Hale realized she had forgotten lemons and returned to the produce section.
- Upon retrieving the lemons and taking one or two steps to return to the checkout line, Hale slipped on a whole banana on the floor and fell, causing injury.
- The banana was squashed, had small teeth marks in one end, but had not been peeled.
- The employee in charge of the produce section provided conflicting testimony, but confirmed there was a period of at least 5 to 12 minutes during which he was not present in the section before the accident.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs Helen Hale and her husband sued defendant Safeway Stores, Inc. in a California trial court for damages.
- The case was tried by the court sitting without a jury.
- At the close of the plaintiffs' presentation of evidence, the defendant moved for a judgment of nonsuit.
- The trial court granted the motion for nonsuit and entered judgment in favor of Safeway.
- The plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the judgment to the California District 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 a slip-and-fall plaintiff present sufficient evidence to survive a motion for nonsuit by showing that a grocery store's produce section, a high-traffic area, was not inspected by any employee for a period of 15 to 30 minutes or more during a busy time?
Opinions:
Majority - Warne, J. pro tem.
Yes. A judgment of nonsuit was improper because the plaintiff presented a factual issue upon which a judgment in her favor could be sustained. A store owner has a duty to exercise reasonable care, and whether a dangerous condition existed long enough for the owner to have constructive notice is a question of fact for the jury. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the facts that the produce section of a busy store may have been left uninspected for 15 to 30 minutes or more is sufficient for a jury to infer that the store owner, exercising ordinary prudence, should have discovered and remedied the dangerous condition. The required level of vigilance varies with the circumstances, and a grocery store's produce section demands a more vigilant outlook than other types of businesses.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that constructive notice in premises liability cases can be established through circumstantial evidence of inadequate inspection protocols, rather than direct evidence of how long a hazard was present. It lowers the barrier for plaintiffs to get their slip-and-fall cases to a jury, particularly against high-traffic businesses like supermarkets. The ruling reinforces that the reasonableness of a store's safety procedures is a question of fact, making it more difficult for defendants to win such cases on pretrial motions like nonsuit. Consequently, it incentivizes businesses to maintain and document regular and frequent safety sweeps of their premises, especially in areas prone to spillage or debris.
