According
to the Opinion, the Plaintiff slipped and fell on water on the floor of a
restaurant bathroom. Thereafter, the Plaintiff saw water dripping from the
ceiling light and onto the floor.
The
record before the court indicated that the restaurant manager testified that
the restrooms were inspected on at least an hourly basis and that the subject
bathroom had been checked approximately 45 minutes before the Plaintiff fell
and that no liquid on the floor was found.
The manager also did not recall water ever dripping from the
ceiling.
In
granting summary judgment for the defense, the court noted that the Plaintiff
merely asserted, without explanation, that the ceiling was dripping. The court also found that no evidence was
prevented to show that the Defendant knew that there was water on the floor or
that the ceiling had leaked on any prior occasion.
The
court also noted that the Plaintiff failed to provide any evidence that the
Defendant had constructive notice of any alleged water on the floor where the
Plaintiff admitted that there were no footprints, track marks, or slip marks on
the floor.
The
court additionally noted that the Plaintiff’s argument that stains on the
ceiling proved that the leak in the ceiling was a recurring condition failed
because the stains on the ceiling did not, in and of themselves, establish that
the Defendant should have been aware of a leaking ceiling or water on the floor
on this particular occasion. It was
noted that the Plaintiff did not present any evidence to show that the stains
were not old stains from a ceiling air conditioning unit that had been replaced
six (6) months before the incident.
Anyone
wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
Source: “Digest of
Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (April 16, 2019).
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.