A Store Does Not Have a Duty to Constantly Monitor its Premises for Potential Hazards, and Any Alleged Failure to Monitor Is Not Enough to Establish Constructive Notice of a Hazard.

Marshall Dennehey
Contact

Smalis v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 2023 WL 8479242 (W.D. Pa. 2023)

The plaintiff, a customer of the defendant’s store, slipped and fell on water located on the floor of the men’s restroom. After the defendant removed the case to federal district court, it filed a motion to dismiss.

In deciding the motion to dismiss, the court noted that the plaintiff did not argue that the defendant created the alleged spill or that it had actual notice of the spill. The court held that there was no evidence as to the duration of the spill on the floor or any other facts to establish constructive notice. The court found that the defendant did not have a duty to constantly monitor the store for potential hazards and that any alleged failure to monitor was not enough to establish constructive notice.

The court ruled that, as the plaintiff could not establish the required notice element, the defendant was entitled to summary judgment.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Marshall Dennehey | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Marshall Dennehey
Contact
more
less

Marshall Dennehey on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide