Milk%20Case - RICHARD M. ORTEGA, Plaintiff and Respondent,...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
RICHARD M. ORTEGA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KMART CORPORATION, Defendant and Appellant. No. S091888. SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA 26 Cal. 4th 1200; 36 P.3d 11; 114 Cal. Rptr. 2d 470; 2001 Cal. LEXIS 8479; 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Service 10516; 2001 Daily Journal DAR 13099 December 20, 2001, Decided PRIOR HISTORY: Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Super. Ct. No. YC031334. Jean E. Matushinka, Judge. Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division One. B131083. Ortega v. K-mart, Inc., 83 Cal. App. 4th 175, 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 451, 2000 Cal. App. LEXIS 661 (2d Dist. 2000) DISPOSITION: Affirmed. COUNSEL: Arnold, Frederick D. Baker and Katharine Demgen for Defendant and Appellant. California Retailers Association and the National Association of Chain Drug Stores as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant. Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant. Law Office of Richard A. Lense and Richard A. Lense for Plaintiff and Respondent. as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Respondent. JUDGES: Opinion by Chin, J., with George, C. J., Baxter, J., Werdegar, J., Kolkey, J., * and McDonald, J., ** concurring. Concurring opinion by Kennard, J. (see p. 1213). * Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. ** Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
OPINIONBY: CHIN OPINION: [*1203] [**13] [***473] CHIN, J. We granted review to decide under what circumstances, if any, a store owner may be liable for injuries to a business invitee from a dangerous condition on its premises where the evidence fails to show how long the dangerous condition existed prior to the injury. The cases require that an owner must have actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition before incurring liability. ( Hatfield v. Levy Brothers (1941) 18 Cal. 2d 798, 806 [117 P.2d 841] (Hatfield); Girvetz v. Boys' Market, Inc. (1949) 91 Cal. App. 2d 827, 829 [206 P.2d 6] (Girvetz ).) The plaintiff has the burden to prove the owner had actual or constructive notice of the defect in sufficient time to correct it. ( Louie v. Hagstrom's Food Stores (1947) 81 Cal. App. 2d 601, 606 [184 P.2d 708] (Louie).) <#refpt_CA6a>(1a) The question here is: If the plaintiff has no evidence of the source of the dangerous condition or the length of time it existed, may the plaintiff rely solely on the owner's failure to inspect the premises within a reasonable period of time in order to establish an inference that the defective condition existed long enough
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 12

Milk%20Case - RICHARD M. ORTEGA, Plaintiff and Respondent,...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online