In a California personal injury case where a customer falls on a wet floor near the produce section and no warning sign was present, the case would again fall under premises liability, a specific type of negligence. Produce sections are particularly prone to wet floors due to misting systems, leaking produce, or refrigeration condensation—so stores are expected to be especially vigilant in these areas.
🔍 Legal Analysis Under California Premises Liability Law
To hold the store liable, the injured customer (plaintiff) must establish the following:
1. Duty of Care
- California law requires stores to maintain reasonably safe conditions for shoppers (Civ. Code § 1714).
- This includes:
- Inspecting the produce area frequently.
- Cleaning up water on the floor promptly.
- Providing adequate warnings (like wet floor signs) if a hazard can’t be cleaned up right away.
2. Breach of Duty
- The store failed to either:
- Prevent the floor from becoming slippery, or
- Warn customers of the hazard with visible signage or barriers.
Key Point: The lack of a warning sign is often a strong indicator of negligence when a known hazard exists.
3. Notice (Actual or Constructive Knowledge)
- The plaintiff must prove the store:
- Knew about the wet floor (actual knowledge), or
- Should have known because it had existed long enough for the store to discover it (constructive knowledge).
- Frequent produce misting or ongoing leakage could support constructive knowledge.
4. Causation
- The fall must be directly caused by the wet floor.
- Eyewitnesses, store surveillance, and statements made in an incident report can confirm this.
5. Damages
- Must show actual injuries and losses: medical expenses, lost income, pain and suffering, etc.
📎 Evidence That Helps the Plaintiff
- Surveillance footage showing the fall and conditions leading up to it.
- Photos of the wet floor and lack of warning signs.
- Store incident report.
- Employee statements or maintenance logs showing inspection frequency (or lack thereof).
- Medical records.
- Witness testimony.
⚖️ Comparative Fault (California is Pure Comparative Negligence)
- If the customer was partially at fault (e.g., wearing unsafe shoes, running), any award is reduced by their percentage of fault.
Example: If a jury finds the store 80% at fault and the plaintiff 20%, and the total damages are $100,000, the customer gets $80,000.
🚧 Common Defenses by the Store
- The spill happened just moments before the fall, so they didn’t have time to discover it.
- The wet floor was obvious and the customer should have seen it.
- The customer was distracted or not watching where they were walking.
- The area was regularly inspected and maintained.
🕒 Statute of Limitations
- You must file a personal injury claim within 2 years from the date of the incident in California.
✅ Summary
Key legal question: Did the store reasonably inspect the produce area and warn or clean up known hazards in a timely manner?
A wet produce floor without a warning sign is often a strong case for negligence, especially if the hazard was foreseeable or recurring.
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”]].