The court will most likely find that Davila Grocery Store had actual constructive knowledge of the mop water and therefore liable for premises liability. In order to establish constructive knowledge, the object that may pose harm must be there for an extended period of time. The extended period of time must be reasonable in that there was sufficient time for the risk of harm to be removed.
The court will rule in favor of Ms. Pedroza due to the substantial length of time that the mop water was left on the entrance, enough time for a reasonable person to check on it and determine its probable risk in causing harm.
In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Sparkman, the plaintiff sued the defendant for a slip-and-fall case. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Sparkman, 2014 WL 6997166, 3 (Tex. App. 2014). It was a rainy day and the entranceway was potentially slippery due to the amount of water coming in from the rain, or the water that people brought in by customers walking in. Id. The employees used the incorrect mop, a mop …show more content…
v. Rosa acknowledges the importance of substantial evidence to show longevity. After paying for her groceries, Rosa slipped on a banana and sued Wal-Mart for negligence. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Rosa, 52 S.W.3d 842, 843 – 846 (Tex. App. 2001). The court identified this case as a slip-and-fall situation, incorporating the elements of premises liability. Id. Rosa unsuccessful tried to establish the longevity of the banana by referring to its “brown” exterior claiming it took at least forty-five minutes to one hour for the banana to turn brown.” Id. This did not prove that the banana had been there for an extended period of time, the evidence was circumstantial. The probability that the banana could have been brown already is just as reasonability. Id. Again, unable to make a direct correlation between the longevity of the object and its presence on the floor makes it unreasonable to establish constructive knowledge.
The court will rule in favor of Ms. Pedroza due to the substantial length of time that the mop water was left on the entrance, enough time for a reasonable person to check on it and determine its probable risk in causing harm.
In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Sparkman, the plaintiff sued the defendant for a slip-and-fall case. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Sparkman, 2014 WL 6997166, 3 (Tex. App. 2014). It was a rainy day and the entranceway was potentially slippery due to the amount of water coming in from the rain, or the water that people brought in by customers walking in. Id. The employees used the incorrect mop, a mop …show more content…
v. Rosa acknowledges the importance of substantial evidence to show longevity. After paying for her groceries, Rosa slipped on a banana and sued Wal-Mart for negligence. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Rosa, 52 S.W.3d 842, 843 – 846 (Tex. App. 2001). The court identified this case as a slip-and-fall situation, incorporating the elements of premises liability. Id. Rosa unsuccessful tried to establish the longevity of the banana by referring to its “brown” exterior claiming it took at least forty-five minutes to one hour for the banana to turn brown.” Id. This did not prove that the banana had been there for an extended period of time, the evidence was circumstantial. The probability that the banana could have been brown already is just as reasonability. Id. Again, unable to make a direct correlation between the longevity of the object and its presence on the floor makes it unreasonable to establish constructive knowledge.