Ortega

Plaintiff and his fiancee were shopping in defendant's market. At the milk aisle, plaintiff put a carton of milk into his shopping cart and immediately slipped on a puddle of milk. He suffered significant injuries to his knee, including ligament tears. The jury awarded him $47,200 in damages. The trial court denied defendant's motions for a new trial and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.

Neither side can point to any evidence of how long the puddle was there before plaintiff slipped on it. Plaintiff argues that because of defendant's shoddy cleanup policy, it can be inferred the puddle was there long enough that defendant reasonably should have discovered it. Defendant says plaintiff must demonstrate the puddle was there long enough to establish constructive notice.

We have looked at a plethora of similar cases. One line of cases seems to compel a reversal in favor of defendant. Another line, which we are required to follow because of a California Supreme Court case, compels affirming the judgment. California law provides that if a plaintiff establishes a shoddy inspection practice by a merchant, the trier of fact can infer the substance was on the floor long…