Ortega v. Kmart Corp.
26 Cal. 4th 1200, 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10516, 36 P.3d 11 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a premises liability action, a plaintiff can establish a store owner's constructive notice of a dangerous condition with circumstantial evidence that the owner failed to inspect the premises within a reasonable period of time, which permits an inference that the condition existed long enough for the owner to have discovered it.
Facts:
- Richard M. Ortega was shopping at a Kmart store in Torrance.
- Ortega slipped on a puddle of milk on the floor adjacent to a refrigerator.
- As a result of the fall, Ortega suffered significant injuries to his knee, including ligament tears.
- Ortega could not present evidence indicating how long the milk had been on the floor prior to his fall, such as its temperature or condition.
- A Kmart manager testified that employees were supposed to walk the aisle where the fall occurred every 15 to 30 minutes.
- The manager admitted, however, that the milk could have been on the floor for as long as two hours.
- The manager also testified that on the day of the accident, management had no idea if the aisle where the accident occurred had been inspected at any time.
- Kmart did not keep any written records of its floor inspections.
Procedural Posture:
- Richard M. Ortega sued Kmart Corporation in a state trial court for personal injuries.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of Ortega and awarded him $47,200 in damages.
- Kmart, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the intermediate Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of Ortega, the appellee.
- The California Supreme Court granted review of the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a premises liability case where there is no direct evidence of how long a dangerous condition existed, may a plaintiff establish the owner's constructive notice by relying on evidence that the owner failed to inspect the premises within a reasonable period of time?
Opinions:
Majority - Chin, J.
Yes. A plaintiff may establish constructive notice of a dangerous condition by showing that the property owner failed to inspect the premises within a reasonable period of time, which is sufficient to create an inference that the condition existed long enough for the owner to have discovered and remedied it. A store owner has a duty to exercise ordinary care by making reasonable inspections of the premises. While a plaintiff bears the burden of proving the owner had constructive notice, this burden can be met with circumstantial evidence. Evidence that an inspection was not conducted within a reasonable time frame before an accident allows a jury to infer that the hazardous condition existed long enough to have been discovered by a reasonably prudent owner. This approach does not make the owner an insurer of patron safety but properly places the question of fact—whether the owner's inspection protocol was reasonable under the circumstances—before the jury. Here, the manager's admission that the milk could have been on the floor for up to two hours and that there was no certainty an inspection had occurred within 15-30 minutes provided a sufficient basis for such an inference.
Concurring - Kennard, J.
Yes. This case correctly decides the issue of causation, in contrast to the court's prior decision in Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400. This case and Saelzler both involved a defendant property owner's argument that the plaintiff could not prove causation because it was uncertain whether reasonable precautions (inspections or security) would have prevented the injury. In Saelzler, the majority wrongly imposed a burden of proving causation with certainty. Here, the court correctly holds that a plaintiff need only show that it is 'more likely than not' that the defendant's negligence was a cause of the injury, and that this question is properly for the jury. The majority's sound reasoning—that a negligent failure to inspect can support an inference of causation—should have also been applied in Saelzler.
Analysis:
This decision significantly aids plaintiffs in slip-and-fall cases by clarifying a viable method of proving constructive notice without direct evidence of the hazard's duration. It incentivizes business owners to implement and, crucially, to document regular and reasonable inspection procedures to rebut the inference of negligence. By endorsing the rule from Bridgman v. Safeway Stores, Inc., the court shifts the factual inquiry from what the plaintiff can prove about the spill to what the defendant can prove about its own safety practices. This holding lowers the barrier for plaintiffs to survive summary judgment and reach a jury, thereby increasing the settlement value of such claims and emphasizing the procedural importance of diligent premises maintenance.
