In a California personal injury case where a shopper slips on water from a leaking refrigeration unit that the store knew about but failed to repair, the legal claim falls under premises liability due to negligence. These facts strongly support store liability, especially because the hazard was known and ignored.
📜 Legal Framework – Premises Liability (Negligence) in California
The shopper (plaintiff) must prove the following elements:
1. Duty of Care
- Under California Civil Code § 1714, store owners owe a duty to exercise reasonable care to maintain their premises in a safe condition for customers.
- That includes fixing known hazards (like a leaking fridge) and protecting against foreseeable injury.
2. Breach of Duty
- The store knew about the leaking refrigeration unit but did not repair it or take temporary safety precautions (e.g., floor signs, mats, barriers).
- This is a clear breach of duty to prevent a known, recurring slip hazard.
3. Notice – Actual Knowledge
- This is a strong part of the plaintiff’s case.
- Since the store had actual notice (they knew it was leaking), the legal standard for liability is highly favorable to the injured party.
- If the hazard had been reported by employees, observed during maintenance, or had existed long enough that the store should have acted, that bolsters the claim.
4. Causation
- The shopper must prove the fall was directly caused by the water from the refrigerator leak.
- Witnesses, video footage, and incident reports can support this.
5. Damages
- Injuries must have resulted in measurable losses: medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering, etc.
🧾 Evidence That Supports the Plaintiff
- Surveillance video of the fall and the water on the floor.
- Maintenance records showing prior knowledge of the leak.
- Internal emails or reports documenting the refrigeration issue.
- Photos of the water and lack of warning signs.
- Witnesses (shoppers or employees) who knew of the leak or saw the fall.
- Incident report completed at the time.
- Medical records proving injury.
⚖️ Comparative Fault (Pure Comparative Negligence)
- California reduces damages if the plaintiff is found partially at fault.
- Example: If the shopper was 10% at fault for not watching where they were walking, their award is reduced by 10%.
🛡️ Possible Store Defenses
- The water was cleaned moments before the fall, and a new leak occurred without warning.
- The shopper was distracted, wearing unsafe shoes, or otherwise not paying attention.
- The store posted warnings or barriers (if they did, it could lessen liability).
🕒 Statute of Limitations
- The shopper has 2 years from the date of the injury to file a lawsuit (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1).
✅ Summary
This is a strong liability case for the shopper because:
- The store had actual knowledge of a recurring danger.
- The store failed to act, either through repair or by providing adequate warning.
- The shopper was injured as a foreseeable consequence of that inaction.
Law Offices of James R. Dickinson – 909-848-8448
How To Schedule A Consultation:
Please call us at 909-848-8448 to schedule a free consultation/case evaluation or complete the form immediately below. [Please note certain formalities must be completed to retain the Law Offices of James R. Dickinson, such as the signing of a legal fee agreement [see “Disclaimers”]].