This action involved a trip and fall accident that occurred in the evening when
Plaintiff, his wife and his friends were patrons of Defendant’s restaurant in Santa Barbara.

At approximately 9:30 p.m. Plaintiff left the restaurant exiting the side entrance-exit
doorway leading to the parking lot. It was dark, the light fixture on top of the doorway was
burned out and there were no lights in the parking lot. According to witnesses the light had
been out for several days. In addition to the lack of lighting, the landing for the subject
doorway was uneven. The right side of the landing extended out only 38 inches while the
left side extended out 5 feet and 6 inches.

As a result of the insufficient lighting and unevenness in the landing, Plaintiff’s right
leg first stepped down unto the parking lot while his left leg remained on the landing
causing him to lose his balance and fall sustaining severe injuries.

Plaintiff maintained that Defendant created a dangerous condition at its premises
by installing the subject side entrance-exit doorway where the landing was uneven. The
dangerous condition was made worse when Defendants failed to provide sufficient lighting
at the subject doorway.

When the subject premises was built, the landing was even in size and the exit did
not exist. The landing was later modified into its current condition when the parking lot
design was changed from diagonal parking spaces to straight parking spaces. Thereafter,
the subject exit doorway was constructed without obtaining a permit. A permit for the
subject exit doorway would have required the landing for such doorway to be at least five
(5) feet. Additionally, the Uniform Building Code required that there be at least 44 inches
of landing when the door opens. When the door to the side entrance/exit opened, it took
over half of the landing to where the next step on the right side was the parking lot while
on the left side there is more landing creating a trip and fall accident hazard.

In regard to illumination, the Uniform Building Code (hereinafter UBC) required that
one (1) foot candle of lighting be provided. An inspection of the subject premises
conducted under similar circumstances revealed that the measure of light for the subject
doorway and the parking lot was in the range of 0.06 to 0.13. The measure of lighting for
the subject doorway was only 0.06. However, on another inspection, the measure of light
was higher, because Defendant had installed light fixtures in the patio leading to the
subject doorway and rope lighting around the building.

The light measurements taken by Defendant’s expert revealed that the light source
was less than one (1) foot candle of lighting required by Uniform Building Code. Even
assuming any light source existed at the doorway, it would be blocked by the human body
upon exiting the doorway especially when reaching the curb at the landing.

When an unsafe condition in premises causes injury to business invitee, and has
been created by owner of property or by employee within scope of his employment,
knowledge of dangerous condition is imputed to owner and invitee need not prove owner's
notice or knowledge of it. Sanders v. MacFarlanes Candies, 119 Cal. App.2d 497 (1953).
Although obviousness of a danger may relieve property owner of duty to warn of its
existence, it will not necessarily relieve him of duty to remedy a danger if property owner
can foresee that, despite its obviousness, danger may cause injury, as when necessity
requires persons to encounter it. Osborn v. Missions Ready Mix, 224 Cal. App.3d 104.

This accident occurred while Plaintiff was shopping at Defendant’s supermarket for produce. Plaintiff was walking towards the store rack where bananas are shelved, when he tripped and fell over a box that had been left on the floor. The box had been left on the corner of the aisle extending out into the walkway leading to the racks.

At the time of the incident, Plaintiff was looking at Defendant’s merchandise when without any warning he tripped and fell onto the ground landing on his right side sustaining a bruise to his hip. The warehouse manager was notified of the accident. Not only was Plaintiff in a state of shock but since Plaintiff was unable to move, he remained on the floor for about fifteen (15) minutes to see if he could stand up on his own. Plaintiff was unable to stand up on his own and the paramedics were called by the Defendant to render emergency care to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff was taken to UCLA hospital for emergency care and he was diagnosed to have a fractured femur bone. Plaintiff was operated on twice on different dates and hospitalized. After being discharged from the hospital, Plaintiff sought rehabilitation therapy which did not assist in recovery of his injuries.

Plaintiff contended that storekeepers are under duty to use ordinary care to keep the floors of their premises reasonably safe for the business invitees who must pass over them. Tuttle v. Crawford, 8 Cal.2d 126, 130.

Although obviousness of a danger may relieve property owner of duty to warn of its existence, it will not necessarily relieve him of duty to remedy danger if property owner can foresee that, despite its obviousness, danger may cause injury, as when necessity requires persons to encounter it. Osborn v. Missions Ready Mix, 224 Cal. App.3d 104.

Moreover, when an unsafe condition in premises causes injury to business invitee, and has been created by owner of property or by employee within scope of his
employment, knowledge of dangerous condition is imputed to owner and invitee need not prove owner's notice or knowledge of it. Sanders v. MacFarlanes Candies, 119 Cal.App.2d 497 (1953).

If owner operates a self-service grocery store, where customers are invited to inspect, remove, and replace goods on shelves, the exercise of ordinary care may require the owner to take greater precautions and make more frequent inspections than would otherwise be needed to safeguard against the possibility that such a customer may create a dangerous condition by disarranging the merchandise and creating potentially hazardous conditions. Oretega v. Kmart Corportion, 26 Cal.4th 1200.

Defendant did not have any documentation or evidence to show that inspection of the premises was made to remedy any dangerous conditions.

Evidence that an inspection has not been made within a particular period of time prior to an accident may warrant an inference in premises liability action that the defective condition existed long enough so that a person exercising reasonable care would have discovered it. Id. Evidence that supermarket operator had not inspected aisle where patron slipped on puddle of milk for at least 15 to 30 minutes, and that milk could have been on floor for as long as two hours, permitted reasonable inference in patron's premises liability action that the dangerous condition existed long enough for it to be discovered by the owner. Id.

As a child Plaintiff suffered from polio resulting in a limp in his left leg rendering him partially disabled. Despite the limp, prior to the accident, Plaintiff was able to engage in his daily life activities without restrictions. Although Plaintiff had a limp in his left leg, he did not need the assistance of a walker, cane, and/or wheelchair. After the accident, however, Plaintiff’s daily life activities were adversely affected.

This action involved a slip and fall incident wherein Plaintiff sustained severe injuries, requiring back surgery, as a result of Defendants’ negligence in failing to place floor mats in the lobby area, on a rainy day, knowing that the floor was slippery when wet.

Plaintiff’s expert conducted an inspection of the entry and lobby to the office building in which the accident occurred. When water was added to the unsealed tile surface, the
amount of available traction was 0.20, a traction level which is dangerously low. On the day of the incident, Defendants had failed to place a floor mat in the lobby area of the subject
building where Plaintiff slipped and fell. The only floor mat that existed was a built in floor mat immediately outside the lobby entrance doors leading into the lobby area. Inspection
revealed that the strips on the exterior mat were not absorbent and would not have removed moisture from the shoe. The nature and texture of exterior mat would
actually allow water to transfer from the exterior strips unto the sole and heel of ones shoes.

The testimony of Plaintiff was that it was generally wet and misty on the day of the incident since it had been raining. Plaintiff further testified that he remembers using his
windshield wipers on his way to work. In addition to the premises being wet and misty, Plaintiff testified that prior to walking into the lobby area, he had to walk on the exterior mat
and momentarily pause on the exterior mat to open the door. Therefore, the strips on the exterior mat were not absorbent and would not remove moisture from the shoe. In fact,
the strips actually allow water to transfer from the exterior strips to the sole and heel of Plaintiff’s shoe. As a result, Plaintiff slipped and fell after taking his first or second step into
the lobby area. Plaintiff testified that upon taking his first or second step he felt slipping really fast and fell to the ground.