In slip and fall cases, the plaintiff must be able to identify the cause of the fall to establish proximate causation. Often, a plaintiff relies upon an expert to satisfy this burden.

In Jaquez v. Lind-Ric Housing Co., Inc., plaintiff slipped and fell in a building stairwell and sued the building owner alleging the paint coating the stairs made them slippery. Defendant moved for summary judgment arguing that though there was paint on the stairs, the paint did not create a slippery condition. In opposition, plaintiff produced an expert affidavit opining that plaintiff fell as a result of defendant’s negligence, since the paint used on the stairs caused slippery and unsafe conditions.

In granting defendant’s motion, the court found that plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Other than stating the steps were slippery, plaintiff’s expert did not identify any tests that were conducted on the surface of the stairwell, nor cite any specific industry standards stating the paint caused an unsafe and slippery condition.

This case is an example of the bare bones expert affidavits that plaintiffs often use to avoid summary judgment. Courts generally require a little more substance to sustain the cause of action when a specific actionable defect is not identified.

Thanks to Caroline Freilich for her contribution to this post.