SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Background 

Plaintiff Martha Medina Navarro (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Walmart Inc. (“Walmart”) and Moises Doe for damages arising from a slip and fall on September 29, 2019 at the Walmart located on 14530 Nordhoff Street, Panorama City, CA 91402. (Compl. at ¶ 7.) Plaintiff alleges defendants allowed a liquid substance to remain on the floor, thereby causing Plaintiff to sustain injuries. (Id. at ¶ 8.) The complaint sets forth two causes of action for negligence and premises liability.   

Walmart now moves for summary judgment, or in the alternative summary adjudication, as to Plaintiff’s complaint. 

Any opposition was due on or before February 1, 2024. The motion is unopposed. 

“When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection), as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.” (Avivi, supra, 159 Cal.App.4th at p. 467; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(c).) 

B. Negligence/Premises Liability  

The elements of a cause of action for premises liability are the same as those for negligence: duty, breach, causation, and damages.  (Castellon v. U.S. Bancorp (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 994, 998.)  Those who own, possess, or control property generally have a duty to exercise ordinary care in managing the property to avoid exposing others to an unreasonable risk of harm.  (Annocki v. Peterson Enterprises, LLC (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 32, 37.)  The existence and scope of duty are legal questions for the court.  (Id. at 36.)  If a dangerous condition exists, the property owner is “under a duty to exercise ordinary care either to make the condition reasonably safe for their use or to give a warning adequate to enable them to avoid the harm.”  (Bridgman v. Safeway Stores, Inc. (1960) 53 Cal.2d 443, 446.)  

“A plaintiff alleging injuries based on a dangerous condition must prove the defendant either: (1) created the dangerous condition, or (2) knew or should have known of the dangerous condition.  (See Peralta v. Vons Companies, Inc. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1030, 1036; see also Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200, 1206.)  “[A] defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law if the plaintiff fails to show that the dangerous condition existed for at least a sufficient time to be discovered by ordinary care and inspection.”  (Ortega, 26 Cal.4th at 1207.)    

Walmart contends there is no evidence that it had actual or constructive knowledge of the spill on the floor. Walmart argues Plaintiff concedes she has no evidence of how long the spill was on the floor. Walmart avers the subject store of Plaintiff’s slip and fall are inspected and maintained by its associates on a frequent basis, including specifically assigned maintenance associates. Walmart contends the surveillance video, although not capturing the incident, captured its maintenance associate John Abd El Malak (“Mr. Malak”) dry mopping the aisles. At 4:16:48 p.m., approximately 3 minutes and 33 seconds before the incident, Mr. Malak was seen dry mopping and zoning the end of the aisle where the incident occurred. Plaintiff entered the subject aisle at approximately 4:20:21 p.m. and fell within six seconds of entering the aisle based on the reaction of an unknown customer walking toward Plaintiff at 4:20:27 p.m. Mr. Malak declares that he personally inspected the end of the aisle where Plaintiff fell approximately 3 and a half minutes before her fall, and that he did not see anything on the floor. (Malak Decl. ¶10.) 

Here, Walmart met its prima facie burden that it inspected its floors, and that it had neither actual or constructive notice of the spill with sufficient time to discover and remedy the condition. Therefore, the burden shifts to Plaintiff to produce evidence showing a triable issue of material fact. Because Plaintiff did not oppose the motion, she necessarily fails to meet this burden.  

 

Based on the foregoing, Walmart’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.  

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.