Case Brief Draft

Rose Peralta et al., v. Vons Companies, Inc., 235 Cal.Rptr.3d 212,24 Cal.App.5th 1030 (2018)

Facts:
Rose Peralta slipped and fell in a Vons store’s bakery section. Vons asserts she has no evidence their floor
caused her fall. Vons filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (MSJ), which Rose then attempted to oppose
with expert declaration that Vons’ flooring fell below industry standard and especially dangerous when wet.
Trial court granted MSJ: Vons neither knew or had duty to know about the alleged hazard; and plaintiff
"failed to produce any evidence that the floor was wet with water, grease, oil, or any other substance.”

Procedural History:
Prior Proceedings - Los Angeles County Superior Court
● COMPLAINT: filed by Peraltas against Vons for general negligence and premises liability.
● MSJ: filed by Vons stating not liable and met its duty of care.
● OPPOSITION TO MSJ: filed by Peraltas declaring floor was indeed unsafe.
● RESULT: MSJ granted to Vons
Present Proceeding
● APPEAL: Peraltas appeal trial court’s MSJ asserting triable issues a jury should have decided on. Court
of Appeals of California, 2nd District, Div 1, No. B282130.
Issue: Did the trial court err in its MSJ pro defendant? No

Applicable Rule of Law: Summary judgment is valid "if all the papers submitted show that there is no
triable issue as to any material fact" such that "the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law." (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).)

Holding: (Johnson, J.) No admissible evidence to create a triable issue of material fact as to whether
Vons was on constructive notice that the floor was slippery or otherwise dangerous.

Disposition: Judgment affirmed. Each party bears their own costs on appeal.

Reasoning:
Peraltas argue these are triable issues of material fact that should have been decided by a jury.
I. The presence of a dangerous condition on the floor where Rose fell To meet burden of proof, ”`plain-
tiff must introduce evidence which affords a reasonable basis for the conclusion that it is more likely than
not that the conduct of the defendant was a cause in fact of the result. A mere possibility of such causation
is not enough; and when the matter remains one of pure speculation or conjecture, or the probabilities are at
best evenly balanced, it becomes the duty of the court to direct a verdict for the defendant.'" (Ortega,
supra, 26 Cal.4th at pp. 1205-1206.). Without evidence that a slippery substance was on the floor at the
time she fell, or that others had slipped in same location, there is no basis to support suggestion that Vons's
breach caused Rose to fall.
 Case Brief Draft

II. Adequacy and timing of inspections Peraltas questions if Vons inspected the area within reasonable
time prior to Rose's fall. Evidence of a store owner's "failure to inspect the premises within a reasonable
period of time prior to the accident is indicative defendant's negligence and creates a reasonable inference
that the dangerous condition existed long enough for it to be discovered by the owner." (Ortega, supra, 26
Cal.4th at p. 1211.)
Vons recorded inspections performed less than 8 minutes before Rose fell. Rose says she did not see any
employees in the bakery area during the 10 to 15 minutes she was there. But her statement is insufficient to
defeat summary judgment: “a defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law if the plaintiff fails to
show that the dangerous condition existed for at least a sufficient time to be discovered by ordinary care
and inspection.” (Ortega, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 1207.)
Since Peraltas failed to establish the existence of any issues of material fact, judgement was affirmed.

Comment:
● Speculation does not establish causation.