TEODORO v. SMITH FOOD DRUG STORES INC 311 (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-06-16No. No. 20-15629

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court reversed and remanded the grant of summary judgment because evidence of a store employee's proximity to and apparent visibility of the liquid created a triable issue of fact regarding the store's constructive notice of the hazardous condition.

Teodoro sued Smith Food & Drug Stores for injuries sustained in a slip-and-fall accident on liquid left on the store floor. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the store, concluding that Teodoro could not establish liability. Under Nevada law, a business is liable for slip-and-fall injuries only if it had actual or constructive notice of the hazardous condition and failed to address it. Teodoro presented no evidence that the store caused the liquid to be there, so she was required to prove the store had constructive notice to survive summary judgment.

The appellate court reversed, finding that evidence in the record created a genuine dispute of material fact regarding constructive notice. A witness who was working 15 feet away testified that he saw Teodoro slip, immediately observed a puddle of clear water at the scene, and retrieved paper towels to clean it up. Because this witness was positioned such that he could have seen the liquid from his workstation, a reasonable jury could infer that the store's employees should have discovered and remedied the hazard. The question of whether the store possessed constructive notice is a factual matter appropriate for a jury to decide, not for dismissal at the summary judgment stage.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Constructive notice requirement in slip-and-fall premises liability cases
Whether employee proximity and visibility can support jury inference of constructive notice
Proper application of summary judgment when material factual disputes exist

Procedural posture

Teodoro appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment on her slip-and-fall negligence claim.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Elizabeth Teodoro (Teodoro) appeals the district courts grant of summary judgment on her slip-and-fall claim under Nevada law. We have jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and review that grant of summary judgment de novo, Braunling v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 220 F.3d 1154, 1156 (9th Cir. 2000). We reverse and remand.

Teodoro offered no evidence before the district court suggesting that Smith Food & Drug Stores, Inc. (Smith) or its agents caused the liquid she slipped on to wind up on the floor. Therefore, “liability will lie only if the business had actual or constructive notice of the condition and failed to remedy it.” Sprague v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 109 Nev. 247, 849 P.2d 320, 323 (1993) (per curiam). Because Teodoro has never argued that Smith had actual notice of that liquid, she had to raise a dispute of material fact as to whether Smith “had constructive notice of the hazardous condition” in order to survive summary judgment. Id. Whether a business possesses constructive notice is generally “a question of fact properly left for the jury.” Id.

Viewing the record in the light most favorable to Teodoro, such a dispute existed here based on the witness statement of Franklin Haley. While working at his station 15 feet away from Teodoro, Haley “watched [Teodoro] step” and saw “her foot slip[ ] out from under her.” He then “looked to the floor and saw a puddle of clear water approximately 4 inches in diameter.” He then “grabbed a roll of paper towels” and went over to Teodoro. This series of events sufficed to raise a triable issue as to Smiths constructive notice given that Haley apparently could see the puddle of water from his workstation. See 62A Am. Jur. 2d Premises Liability § 503 (“Constructive knowledge may also be shown where, because of the location of the accident, it can be inferred that the stores employees could and should have seen the actual spilling of the liquid or the liquid on the floor after it was spilled, in time to remove or alert others to its existence.”); id. § 505 (“Constructive knowledge of ․ debris or litter constituting [a] dangerous condition may ․ be shown where a store employee was in the immediate vicinity of the dangerous condition and could have easily seen and removed the hazard.”).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.