Sign in now
Logout
|
You are signed in as guest Sign in now Logout |
 |
The Law
|
||||
|
Slippery Oranges
by Sara Palmer On December 31st, 2017, Grace Gonzalez along with her two granddaughters were visiting the Ontario Mills Shopping Center. While they were in front of a Converse store, Gonzalez, the plaintiff, slipped and fell on what appeared to be oranges. At the time of the fall, the company Interstate Cleaning Corporation (ICC) was in charge of cleaning the shopping center. The plaintiff filed a form complaint against Ontario Mills Shopping Center and ICC two years later, alleging a single cause of action for premises liability. The defendants, specifically ICC, moved for summary judgment arguing they could not be held liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. They state that they had no actual or constructive knowledge of the spilled oranges and could not have remedied the dangerous condition in time to avert the fall. The defendants submitted substantial evidence that shows their training and maintenance regimens to prove their motion. To properly maintain the cleanliness of the property, the company hired janitorial staff, a.k.a. porters. These porters were to walk predesignated routes every 20 to 30 minutes, inspecting the common area floors for any liquid or debris. While inspecting the floors, the porters do not push janitorial carts as the carts can hinder the porters’ view of anything that needs to be cleaned. Each porter goes through a detailed training program to ensure that they understand the importance of the inspections. It starts with 21 days of hands‑on training ‑ how to follow the designated routes while looking for any debris, substances, and/or other liquids and how to clean any conditions that is found during the inspection. Once this training is completed the ICC conducts unannounced testing 30, 60, and 90 days after the initial training. After the final testing, each porter is subject to regular training and testing during the remainder of their employment. The ICC uses “beacon zones” to ensure the proper cleaning and inspection of the shopping center. The cleaning company uses an employee tracking system called “Lighthouse” to track its porters as they inspect the zones assigned to them. There are four parts to the system:
The defendants gave all of this to show that the zone where Gonzalez fell was constantly monitored by the porter, Ms. Villa, who had been with the company since 2015. Ms. Villa was noted to be good at her job and had no complaints against her throughout her employment. The reports showed that Ms. Villa entered the area where zones 4 and 3 overlap and was in zone 3 for exactly one minute and twenty‑nine seconds, entering and exiting at 2:50:29 p.m. and 2:51:58 p.m. respectfully. This was eight minutes before the plaintiff fell. Gonzalez did not dispute most of the defendant's statements about the training and inspection of the common areas, however, she introduced the declaration of one Brad Avrit, who is a licensed civil engineer. He stated that the floor where the plaintiff fell had an unsafe slip resistance and that the defendants had knowledge of this. However, the plaintiff did not file the declaration and therefore it was not able to be used in the trial court. The court concluded that the defendants gave ample evidence that they were not aware of any dangerous conditions before the fall and that they had done a reasonable inspection within a short period. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff subsequently appealed. The Superior Court found that the evidence given by the defendant demonstrates that the ICC had a reasonable employee training and maintenance program to ensure that the floors of the common areas were cleaned properly. The plaintiff, Gonzalez, argued that the defendants failed to provide video footage to prove that Ms. Villa did properly inspect the area. She states that the video may have shown that Ms. Villa did not do her due diligence and that the defendants should not be rewarded for that. The defendants rebutted, saying that their failure to preserve the video is because the plaintiff mailed her claim letter and evidence retention request to a nonexistent claims department at the shopping center’s address. Neither did the plaintiff request that the trial court apply the adverse evidentiary presumption under Evidence Code Section 413 for willful suppression of evidence or to move to issue discovery sanctions under Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030 for the spoilation of evidence. The Superior Court then determined that the neither it or the trial court must penalize the defendants for not supplying the video. The court therefore agreed with the trial court that the defendants gave ample evidence that they had no reasonable knowledge of the dangerous conditions and the trial court’s decision stands. The ICC cannot be held liable for Gonzalez’s injuries and it will recover its costs on appeal.
(Gonzalez v. Interstate Cleaning Corp. (California Courts of Appeal, Docket: E081220(Fourth Appellate District)))
Decision: November 2024
Feature Articles If you have an opinion on the retailing or retail real estate industries, take this opportunity to share your thoughts. Articles should run between 400 and 800 words. Topics can, be general in nature, consumer observation or specific to retail concepts or practices. Articles will be posted for at least one week and will then be placed in the Editorial Archives. All articles submitted will be read and considered but we cannot guarantee publication. Each published article will carry the submitters byline (if desired) and is a free service to our community. Article ideas and suggestions are also always welcomed. Contact PVS@PlainVanillaShell.com
|
