A patron trips over an empty pallet left in a high-traffic aisle in California personal injury case

In a California personal injury case where a patron trips over an empty pallet left in a high-traffic aisle of a store, the situation strongly suggests potential negligence under premises liability law, especially if the pallet was left in a location where it created a foreseeable hazard.


⚖️ Legal Framework – Premises Liability in California

To prevail, the injured person (plaintiff) must prove five elements:


1. Duty of Care

  • California law (Civ. Code § 1714) imposes a duty on businesses to keep premises in a reasonably safe condition.
  • This includes preventing tripping hazards in high-traffic areas, such as main store aisles.

2. Breach of Duty

  • Leaving an empty pallet in a busy aisle, especially unattended and without warning signs, is likely a breach of that duty.
  • Courts generally recognize that store owners should not obstruct walkways used by the public.

3. Notice

  • The store may be liable if it had:
    • Actual knowledge of the pallet’s placement (e.g., a worker left it there), or
    • Constructive knowledge (it was there long enough that a reasonable store inspection would have discovered and removed it).

If an employee left the pallet, notice is presumed, and liability is more likely.


4. Causation

  • The plaintiff must show that the trip and injury were directly caused by the pallet.
  • Strong evidence includes:
    • Photographs
    • Video footage
    • Witness statements
    • Incident reports

5. Damages

  • Injuries must result in compensable damages, such as:
    • Medical expenses
    • Lost wages
    • Pain and suffering
    • Long-term effects, if applicable

📎 Helpful Evidence

  • Surveillance footage showing the fall or the pallet’s presence.
  • Photos of the pallet in the aisle.
  • Store policies on merchandise handling or pallet storage.
  • Witnesses confirming the pallet had no warning signs or barriers.
  • Employee admissions that pallets are sometimes left out during stocking.

⚠️ Comparative Negligence (Pure Comparative Fault Rule)

  • California uses pure comparative negligence.
  • If the patron was partially at fault (e.g., distracted, walking fast, not watching the floor), their recovery may be reduced proportionally.

Example: Damages = $80,000. Patron found 25% at fault → Award = $60,000.


🛡️ Store’s Likely Defenses

  • The pallet was only there momentarily, and they didn’t have time to move it.
  • The hazard was open and obvious, and a reasonable person should have seen it.
  • The patron wasn’t paying attention or was in an unauthorized area (e.g., behind restocking barriers, if any).

🕒 Statute of Limitations

  • California requires that personal injury claims be filed within 2 years from the date of injury (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1).

✅ Summary

Leaving an empty pallet in a high-traffic aisle without warning signs or barriers is a strong basis for a negligence claim, particularly if:

  • The store placed it there or knew it was there, and
  • The shopper tripped over it without being warned.

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”]].

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *