Synopsis of Rule of Law. A plaintiff in a slip and fall case must prove that the condition of the premises posed an unreasonable risk of harm, and the facts and circumstances will determine whether such risk is unreasonable.
In a premises liability case, the plaintiff must prove: (1) actual or constructive knowledge of some condition on the premises by the owner; (2) that the condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm; (3) the owner did not exercise reasonable care to reduce or eliminate the risk; and (4) the owner's failure to use such care proximately caused the plaintiff's injuries.View Full Point of Law
Issue. Whether mere display of produce for customer sampling constitutes an unreasonable risk of harm to customers?
Held. No. Mere display, without more evidence, cannot be considered a condition on the premises that poses an unreasonable risk of harm.
Discussion. For a plaintiff to recover in negligence for a slip and fall, she has the burden to prove that the store had actual or constructive knowledge of a condition on the premises, (2) the condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm, (3) the store did not exercise reasonable care to reduce or eliminate the risk, and (4) the store’s failure to use such care proximately caused her injuries. Plaintiff here could not provide evidence that the grape display posed an unreasonable risk to customers of falling on grapes.
Cf. Corbin v. Safeway (cited in the opinion), which found an unreasonable risk where the store displayed grapes in a slanted bin over a linoleum tile floor with no protective floor mats.