Getchell

Getchell v. Jewelry

Good Law
136 Cal. Rptr. 3d 641·2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 113·203 Cal. App. 4th 381·2012 WL 376443
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 7, 2012No. C065094California1,859 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Blease, J.

This is not a typical slip-and-fall case. Plaintiff Tom Getchell (plaintiff), a business invitee, alleges that he was injured when he slipped and fell on jewelry cleaning solution in the back room of defendant’s jewelry *383 store, which was accessible only to plaintiff and defendant’s employees. A summary judgment was entered in defendant’s favor on the ground plaintiff failed to establish that defendant had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition.

Plaintiff appeals, contending he was “not required to make any showing of notice by [defendant] because it was [defendant] and its own employees who created the dangerous condition which caused [his] injury . . . .”

This is not an ordinary slip-and-fall case because it turns on whether the dangerous condition was created by the negligence of an employee over whom defendant had control. In such a case the notice doctrine applicable in dangerous condition of property cases is governed by the doctrine of respondeat superior. Since this case arises on summary judgment the dispositive question is whether on the facts tendered in the summary judgment motion there is a reasonable inference that the dangerous…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.