A store owner is not the insurer of its patrons' personal safety, but does have a duty to exercise reasonable care to keep the premises reasonably safe for patrons. (See Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200, 1205, 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 470, 36 P.3d 11 (Ortega).) This includes a duty to keep the floors safe for patrons' use. (Tuttle v. Crawford (1936) 8 Cal.2d 126, 130, 63 P.2d 1128.) To establish an owner's liability for negligence, the plaintiff must prove duty, breach, causation, and damages. (Ortega, at p. 1205, 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 470, 36 P.3d 11.) Causation is an essential element of establishing a defendant’s liability. (Tribeca Companies, LLC v. First American Title Insurance Company (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1088, 1102-03.) Causation includes both actual cause and proximate cause. (Id. at 1103.) A defendant’s negligence is the actual cause of the plaintiff’s injury if it is a substantial factor in bringing about the harm. (Mitchell v. Gonzales (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1041, 1052-53.) 

To meet its initial burden of proof, Defendant introduced evidence that Plaintiff experienced intermittent dizziness, which may have been the reason for her fall. (Plf’s Depo. at 56.) Additionally, she may have fainted when she stepped on something. (Plf’s Depo. at 57:7-8.) 

In addition to affirmative evidence, the defendant may also present evidence that the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence — as through admissions by the plaintiff following extensive discovery to the effect that he has “discovered nothing” to meet its initial burden. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 855.) Under this approach, a defendant's initial evidentiary showing may “consist of the deposition testimony of the plaintiff's witnesses, the plaintiff's factually devoid discovery responses, or admissions by the plaintiff in deposition or in response to requests for admission that he or she has not discovered anything that supports an essential element of the cause of action.” (Lona v. Citibank, N.A. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 89, 110.) In other words, a defendant may show the plaintiff does not possess evidence to support an element of the cause of action by means of presenting the plaintiff's factually devoid discovery responses from which an absence of evidence may be reasonably inferred. (Scheiding v. Dinwiddie Construction Co. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 64, 83.) 

In her deposition, Plaintiff testified she does not know exactly where she fell (Plf's Depo. at 42:13) and did not look to see what caused her fall. (Plf's Depo. at 97:24-98:1.) Plaintiff felt like she stepped on an uneven concrete surface (Plf's Depo. at 61:13-15) and speculated that she might have fallen due to uneven concrete. (Plf's Depo. at 55:5-8.) She is uncertain if she stepped on the edge of a curb next to the grass area, causing her fall (Plf's Depo. at 72:8-16) or whether it was an object, uneven surface or a hole that caused her to fall. (Plf's Depo. at 97.) Plaintiff does not recall how uneven the surface was (Plf's Depo. at 61:8-11) and remembers little about the incident, such as how she fell, which part of her body struck the ground first, or the manner in which she fell. She did not take a photograph of the alleged uneven concrete (Plf's Depo. at 61:2-4) nor did she take any measurements of how uneven the surface was. (Plf's Depo. at 61:5-7.) Plaintiff has no witness who can testify on what caused her fall. (Plf's Depo. at 98:5-8.) Plaintiff did not observe the uneven surface in question. The only basis for her allegation is based on the fact that she fell and her feelings. (Plf's Depo. at 102:15-17.) 

Defendant asked a comprehensive list of questions about the uneven surface alleged to have caused Plaintiff to trip and fall.  In the deposition, Plaintiff testified that she has no photographs, measurements, or witnesses who can verify the existence or nature of the uneven surface. She also is not certain if the uneven surface actually caused her fall; it might have been the curb, a hole, or an object, as she initially believed. Furthermore, she did not observe or see the uneven surface or inspect the condition that caused her fall either before or after the incident. Finally, Plaintiff is unsure of the exact location of the uneven surface, making it difficult for either parties to investigate the alleged uneven surface. The sole evidence in support Plaintiff’s allegation that an uneven concrete surfaced area caused her to trip and fall appears to be that she felt she stepped on an uneven surface. Plaintiff’s deposition supports the inference that, aside from her own feelings and speculations, she possesses no further evidence. Thus, Defendant has met its initial burden. 

Plaintiff did not introduce any new substantive evidence beyond that already introduced by defendant. She contends that poor lighting and a lamp casting shadows might have obscured her view of the uneven surface, thereby complicating her ability to identify what caused her fall. However, this argument does not satisfy her burden of proof once the burden has shifted. Issues with lighting do not mitigate her need for tangible evidence such as photographs, witness statements, or measurements to raise a triable issue of fact. 

Plaintiff’s own testimony that she felt an uneven surface might have caused her to fall is mere conjecture and is "legally insufficient to defeat summary judgment." (Buehler v. Alpha Beta Co.¿(1990)¿224 Cal.App.3d 729, 734.) The mere¿possibility¿that there might be a dangerous condition on the floor does not establish causation. Absent any evidence [asides from Plaintiff’s own testimony that she felt as though her foot slid on “some sort of oil or grease”] that there was actually a dangerous condition, Plaintiffs cannot sustain their burden of proof (Peralta v. Vons Cos. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1030, 1036) Uncorroborated, self-serving and speculative testimony is insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment. (See King v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 426, 433; Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1061 (9th Cir. 2002)). 

 
Conclusion 

Plaintiff failed to introduce any evidence supporting the allegation that an uneven concrete surface caused her to trip, aside from her own uncorroborated, speculative, and self-serving testimony. Consequently, Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, and therefore, the motion for summary judgment on both premises liability and negligence is granted.