Quantcast

Legal Newsline

Sunday, July 21, 2019

Woman loses slip-and-fall case after slip in grocery store while wearing high heels

Lawsuits

By John Breslin | Jul 6, 2018


LOS ANGELES (Legal Newsline) – A California appeals court has affirmed a lower court's ruling in favor of a supermarket chain and against a customer who fell in one of its stores.

Los Angeles County Superior Court issued summary judgment in favor of The Vons Cos., ruling it did not breach any duty of care to cause injuries to Rose Peralta.

Peralta and her husband, Raul, appealed the ruling, claiming the summary judgment should not have been handed down as there were "triable issues of material that should have been decided by a jury."

The 2nd Appellate District Court of California, Division One rejected this argument on May 30, ruling there were no other factual issues raised by the appeal that could change the summary judgment.

The case dates from early 2014.

Peralta claims she was walking to an area to pick up fresh bread when her foot slipped and she fell to the floor.

In her deposition, Peralta admitted she saw nothing on the floor prior to or after the fall, but claimed her foot slipped on "some sort of oil or grease." Following the fall, she filled out an accident report, in which she described the floor as "slippery."

An assistant store manager was summoned and noted that Peralta was wearing 3- to 4-inch stiletto heels and also that she saw "no spill, nothing slippery, no leak, nothing," the ruling states. Peralta admitted she was wearing shoes with 3-inch heels in her deposition testimony.

Peralta alleged she suffered "wage loss, hospital and medical expenses, general damage, and loss of earning capacity." Her husband, Raul, joined the complaint, alleging loss of consortium, or family relationship.

The trial court found that "Vons sufficiently demonstrated that it neither knew nor should have known about the allegedly dangerous condition." Further, Peraltas provided no evidence that any substance was on the floor to make it slippery.

"Vons, therefore, cannot be held liable for failing to correct a condition it would not have discovered through the exercise of reasonable care," the appeals court ruled.

Want to get notified whenever we write about any of these organizations ?

Sign-up Next time we write about any of these organizations, we'll email you a link to the story. You may edit your settings or unsubscribe at any time.

Organizations in this Story

California Second District Court of Appeal Vons Market

More News