Ortega v. Kmart Corp.

Summary

The California Supreme Court held that a plaintiff in a premises-liability slip-and-fall case may establish constructive notice through evidence that the store failed to inspect the area within a reasonable period before the accident. Such evidence permits, but does not require, an inference that the dangerous condition existed long enough for a reasonably careful owner to discover and remedy it; the issue remains for the jury.

Holdings

1. A plaintiff may establish constructive notice of a dangerous condition through circumstantial evidence that the site was not inspected within a reasonable period before the accident, even without direct evidence of how long the condition existed.
2. A store owner owes business invitees a duty to exercise reasonable care to keep the premises reasonably safe, including reasonable inspections commensurate with the risks presented by the business and premises.
3. The inspection-based inference does not create a presumption of negligence, shift the burden of proof to the store owner, or eliminate the requirement that the plaintiff establish constructive notice and causation.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a store owner may be liable for injuries caused by a dangerous condition when the plaintiff cannot directly prove the source of the condition or how long it existed.
2. Whether evidence that the premises were not inspected within a reasonable period before the accident may support an inference that the condition existed long enough to give the owner constructive notice.
3. Whether allowing that inference improperly shifts the plaintiff's burden of proving notice or imposes liability without proof of causation.

Disposition

affirmed