The Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently addressed a crucial issue in all slip-and-fall cases: notice. Specifically, in Rodriguez v. Kravco Simon Company, the court addressed constructive notice of a dangerous condition.
Michael Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”) sued Kravco Simon Company d/b/a Lehigh Valley Mall (“Kravco”) for personal injuries he sustained after he allegedly slipped in a puddle of brown liquid. Rodriguez subsequently sued Kravco for negligence. The trial court, however, granted Kravco’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that Rodriguez failed to put forth evidence that Kravco had actual or constructive notice of the puddle. In fact, Rodriguez’s only evidence supporting the issue of notice was his own testimony regarding the characteristics of the puddle – that the edges of the puddle were “dry and sticky,” indicating that it was on the floor for a period of time significant enough to establish constructive notice. Although the Superior Court reversed the trial court’s ruling on other grounds, the Superior Court noted that Rodriguez’s testimony alone was insufficient evidence to establish constructive notice on the part of Kravco.
As a general matter, Pennsylvania’s case law dictates that what constitutes constructive notice depends on the circumstances, but one of the most important factors to be considered is the time that elapsed between the origin of the condition and the accident. Thakrar v. Wegman’s Food Market, 75 Pa. D. & C.4th 437, 438 (Pa. Com. Pl. 2004). When a plaintiff lacks clear or substantial evidence as to the defendant’s knowledge regarding a dangerous condition, it often becomes a toss-up in the courts as to whether a plaintiff’s evidence will be enough to create a material issue of fact, defeating summary judgment.
Rodriguez v. Kravco offers some clarity in the these situations where a defendant faces a plaintiff with less-than convincing evidence of a dangerous condition, but the evidence also teeters on the line of raising an issue of material fact. As the court seems to suggest in Rodriguez, a plaintiff’s own testimony regarding the nature and characteristics of the spill, absent any other evidence, will not be enough to raise an issue of material fact. While this is a relatively low standard, it at least provides some defined threshold that plaintiffs must overcome in order survive summary judgment in Pennsylvania slip and fall cases.
Thanks to Erin Connoly for her contribution.