Sacramento Personal Injury Lawyer Blog

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this slip and fall case could just as easily occur at any of the supermarkets in the area, such as Safeway, Raley’s, Bel Air, Save Mart, Walmart, or Whole Foods.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury case and its proceedings.)

SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS APPROPRATE ON THE LOSS OF CONSORTIUM CLAIM BECAUSE PAMELA WHITE CANNOT ESTABLISH HER CAUSES OF ACTION

A spouse has a derivative cause of action for loss of consortium caused by a negligent or intentional injury to their spouse by a third party. Rodriguez v. Bethlehem Street Corp. (1974) 12 Cal.3d 382,408. However, a spouse does not have a cause of action for loss of consortium when their spouse has no cause of action in tort. Blain v. Doctor's Co. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1048, 1067. As discussed above, plaintiff Pamela White cannot establish her causes of action for Negligence and Premises Liability. Therefore, summary judgment should be granted on Kenneth White's Loss of Consortium claim.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, there is no triable issue of material fact, and defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Plaintiff Pamela White cannot establish one or more of the elements of her Negligence or Premises Liability causes of action.

Continue reading " Sacramento Safeway Responsible For Slip And Fall Injuries Under Premises Liability, Part 9 of 9 " »

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this slip and fall case could just as easily occur at any of the supermarkets in the area, such as Safeway, Raley’s, Bel Air, Save Mart, Walmart, or Whole Foods.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury case and its proceedings.)

Because the owner is not the insurer of the visitor's personal safety, the owner's actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition is a key to establishing its liability. Moore, supra, 111 Cal.App.4 at 476. In the absence of actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition, the owner is not liable. Ibid. Moreover, where plaintiff relies on the failure to correct a dangerous condition to prove the owner's negligence, the plaintiff has the burden of proof of showing the owner had notice of the defect in sufficient time to correct it. Ibid.

Plaintiff has not and cannot produce any evidence to establish that Safeway Inc. had actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition on the floor prior to plaintiff's fall. Plaintiff concedes that she has no information as to how long the substance had been Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Suort of Defendant Safeway Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment present on the floor prior to her fall or how it came to be on the floor.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading " Safeway's Negligence Results In Sacramento Woman's Slip And Fall, Part 8 of 9 " »

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this slip and fall case could just as easily occur at any of the supermarkets in the area, such as Safeway, Raley’s, Bel Air, Save Mart, Walmart, or Whole Foods.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury case and its proceedings.)

Actionable negligence requires a showing that the defendant owed the plaintiff a legal duty, the defendant breached the duty, and the breach was the proximate or legal cause of the injuries suffered by the plaintiff. Pamela W. v. Millson (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 950, 956. Although a store owner is not an insurer of the safety of its patrons, the owner does owe the patrons a duty to exercise reasonable care in keeping the premises reasonably safe. Moore v. Walmart (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 72,476. A store satisfies its duty of care by making reasonable inspections of the portions of the premises open to customers. Ibid; Adams v. Dow Hotel (1938) 25 Cal.App.2d 51.

An owner or occupier of land is not liable for injury resulting from a dangerous condition that it had no knowledge of unless the condition had existed for such a length of time that, had the owner or occupier exercised reasonable care in inspecting the premises, it would have discovered the condition in time to remedy or warn, prior to the injury. Id. Evidence that a dangerous condition existed only a short period of time before a fall is insufficient, as a matter of law, to establish that Defendant had constructive notice of the dangerous condition. Perez v. Ow, supra; Givertz v. Boy's Market, Inc. (1949) 91 Cal.App.2d 827.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading " Sacramento Safeway Had Duty to Protect Woman From Slip And Fall, Part 7 of 9 " »

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this slip and fall case could just as easily occur at any of the supermarkets in the area, such as Safeway, Raley’s, Bel Air, Save Mart, Walmart, or Whole Foods.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury case and its proceedings.)

THIS COURT SHOULD GRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE PLAINTIFF CANNOT ESTABLISH THAT DEFENDANT BREACHED ITS DUTY OF CARE AND/OR THAT DEFENDANT HAD ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF A DANGEROUS CONDITION.

It is well established under California law that an owner or occupier of land is not strictly liable for injuries occurring on its premises, and is not an insurer of the safety of persons on its premises. (Witkin, Summary of California Law (9th Ed.) Tort 927.) An owner of property has a duty to exercise ordinary care to maintain the property to avoid exposing others to an unreasonable risk of harm. BAJI 8.01; Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108.

Plaintiff must establish the elements of duty, breach of that duty, causation, and damages in order to recover damages under causes of action for negligence and/or premises liability (Restatement 2nd of Torts at 281; Brooks v. Eugene Burger Management Corp. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1611,1619).

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading " Woman Suffers Severe Injuries After Falling In Sacramento Safeway, Part 6 of 9 " »

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this slip and fall case could just as easily occur at any of the supermarkets in the area, such as Safeway, Raley’s, Bel Air, Save Mart, Walmart, or Whole Foods.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury case and its proceedings.)

LEGAL ARGUMENT

SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS PROPER WHERE THERE IS NO TRIABLE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT

Code of Civil Procedure section 437c (c) states that a Motion for Summary Judgment shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

The court's power is not discretionary, but rather mandatory. The purpose for mandatory award of summary judgment is:
to help clear the court's of an overload of repetitious suits when it appears that no factual issue exists... or that one side or the other is wholly without right. Kaiser Foundation Hospital v. Superior Court (1967) 254 Cal.App. 2d 327, citing Dryer v. Dryer (1964) 231Cal.App.2d 441, 449.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

A motion for summary judgment is properly granted where there is no triable issue of fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Code of Civ. Proc. §437c, subd. (c). A defendant meets his burden on a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication if that party proves that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established, or there is a complete defense. Code of Civ. Proc. §437c, subds. (f)(1) and (o)(l),(2).

Continue reading " Sacramento Woman Injured In Safeway After Falling While Buying Groceries, Part 5 of 9 " »

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this slip and fall case could just as easily occur at any of the supermarkets in the area, such as Safeway, Raley’s, Bel Air, Save Mart, Walmart, or Whole Foods.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury case and its proceedings.)

Maintenance and Inspection of the Floor

At the time of the incident, Safeway had in place procedures to inspect and maintain the floors. Safeway assigned a courtesy clerk to clean and inspect the floors at least once every hour. Courtesy clerks were responsible for documenting that they were conducting their sweep activities by "punching" the Sweep Log, sliding their employee time card through the time clock, pressing a button designating a sweep. In addition, as set forth in the Declaration of Safeway store manager, David Hall, employees are trained to clean up anything they observe on the floor, management continuously walks the store to monitor the condition of the floors, and an outside maintenance crew maintains the floors each night.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Safeway courtesy clerk Herbert Lee was assigned to inspect and sweep the floors between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m., on March 24, 2009. As set forth in the Declaration of Mr. Lee, during his sweep hour, he sweeps and inspects the entire store, and then punches the Sweep Log immediately after completing his inspection. Mr. Lee punches the Sweep Log only after he completes an entire sweep of the floors to indicate that the floors were clean and dry at that time.

Continue reading " Woman And Her Husband File Suit Against Safeway For Slip And Fall Injuries, Part 4 of 9 " »

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this slip and fall case could just as easily occur at any of the supermarkets in the area, such as Safeway, Raley’s, Bel Air, Save Mart, Walmart, or Whole Foods.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury case and its proceedings.)

STATEMENT OF FACTS cont.

Plaintiff believes that she slipped and fell in a liquid substance because she claims that the seat of her pants felt wet on one side after the fall. However, plaintiff did not observe any liquid on the floor either before or after the fall. (Deposition of Pamela White, pages 85:23-86:1; 101:11-102:5; 109:1-21; 184:16-21.) Plaintiff concedes that she has no information as to how long the substance she claims she fell is was on the floor prior to her fall or how it came to be on the floor. (Deposition of Pamela White, pages 130:5-131:16; SSF, Fact No. 3).

After the fall, a paramedic pointed out what appeared to plaintiff to be a small piece of ham or turkey on the floor. (Deposition of Pamela White, pages 109:9-111:1.) Plaintiff concedes that she has no information as to how that piece of ham got onto the floor or whether it came from the sandwich she was carrying, and does not know how long it had been on the floor. (Deposition of Pamela White, pages 130:13-25.)

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading " Woman Falls In Sacramento Safeway Due To Liquid On Floor, Part 3 of 9 " »

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this slip and fall case could just as easily occur at any of the supermarkets in the area, such as Safeway, Raley’s, Bel Air, Save Mart, Walmart, or Whole Foods.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury case and its proceedings.)

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On May 3, 2009, plaintiffs Pamela White and Kenneth White filed their Complaint alleging causes of action for Negligence, Premises Liability and Loss of Consortium. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that Pamela White slipped and fell in liquid of the floor and injured her right elbow, and that Safeway failed to exercise reasonable care in maintaining the store premises.

Plaintiff's Fall

On March 24, 2009, plaintiff Pamela White went to the Sacramento Safeway to purchase lunch for her son. Plaintiff arrived at the store between 8:20 a.m. and 8:30 a.m., and went to the deli department to get a ham sandwich. After leaving the deli department, she then walked to the back of the store and turned right down the back, main aisle of the store toward the dairy department to get yogurt. (Deposition of Pamela White, pages 74:9-22, 75:7-18, 76:7-20, 77:4-5; 121:20-122:9.) Plaintiff testified that she fell while walking in the dairy department between 8:40 and 8:45 a.m. At the time of the fall, plaintiff was carrying a ham sandwich, a bag of chips, and a bottle of water. She did not see anything on the floor in the area where she fell prior to her fall.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading " Sacramento Woman Injures Elbow In Safeway Slip And Fall, Part 2 of 9 " »

It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this slip and fall case could just as easily occur at any of the supermarkets in the area, such as Safeway, Raley’s, Bel Air, Save Mart, Walmart, or Whole Foods.

(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this personal injury case and its proceedings.)

Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of Defendant Safeway Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment

INTRODUCTION

This action arises out of a slip and fall incident on March 24,2009, between 8:40 a.m. and 8:45 a.m., in the dairy department of a Safeway supermarket located in Sacramento, California. Defendant does not dispute that plaintiff fell. However, plaintiff cannot establish that there was anything on the floor for a sufficient period of time to provide notice to Safeway of any dangerous condition. Plaintiff concedes that she has no information as to how long any substance may have been present on the floor prior to her fall or how it came to be on the floor.

Safeway performed routine inspections of the floor where plaintiff fell prior to the fall. The floor was last inspected at 8:33 a.m., just 7 to 12 minutes prior to plaintiff's fall.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Continue reading " Sacramento Woman Injured In Safeway Slip And Fall Incident, Part 1 of 9 " »