Oily substance in trash room at mall causes store employee to slip and fall. $3M. Los Angeles County.

Facts and Background

• Facts and Background:

  Plaintiff was working at Brighton Collectibles, one of the stores at the Glendale Galleria. The Glendale Galleria is owned and managed by defendant, Glendale I Mall Associates, LLP. At the time of this incident, co-defendant, ERMC Property Management of Illinois, LLC, was the entity contracted to maintain and clean the mall.

  The Glendale Galleria is divided in two: Galleria I and Galleria II. Around 2:45 p.m. on November 7, 2014, plaintiff and a co-worker were discarding trash and recyclables in the trash room designated to them, called “Trash Room Y” in Galleria I. As she was exiting Trash Room Y, plaintiff slipped and fell back on both hands.

  The co-worker testified that there was an oily substance on the floor at the time of the incident. Both plaintiff and her co-worker noticed that her clothes were wet with grease and dirt. Within Trash Room Y, there was also a cooking oil recycling bin used by the food court workers to dispose of used cooking oil. Less than a month prior to the date of incident, on October 14, 2014, an email was sent to the mall defendant advising them that there was oil on the floor. They were also advised that the cooking oil recycling bin was not leaking but that the food court employees were not properly disposing of the oil, “making a mess everywhere.”

• Plaintiff's Contentions:

  Defendants did not have reasonable inspections of the property to discover unsafe conditions. Plaintiff’s expert, Mark Burns, conducted two site inspections, an informal and a formal. Mr. Burns testified that Trash Room Y was in an unsafe condition at the time of the incident and the results of the testing was slip resistance of 0.15 - 0.20. He concluded that there was an oily substance at the time of the incident and that it would be difficult to perceive and could go easily go unnoticed. Therefore, the floor of the trash room presented an unreasonable risk of harm.

  In addition, Mr. Burns testified that defendants failed to have proper floor inspection procedures to proactively identify hazards and that defendants had actual notice that grease/oil was not being properly disposed of at the premises. Plaintiff was able to show that on the day of the incident, no inspections had occurred.

  The housekeeping manager testified that the last time before the incident that she had been to Trash Room Y was 24 hours before. She did not go to Trash Room Y until after the incident. In addition, the manager for the security guard testified that he went to Trash Room Y after the incident. He was on the other side of the mall called, Galleria II. It took him 7 minutes to get to Trash Room Y from his location. When he got the call, he responded immediately. He was not responsible for patrolling Galleria I.

  There was another security guard on duty the day of the incident for Galleria I. While on patrol, that security guard was supposed to make their presence known, look for potential loss prevention issues, look for hazards, and protect the customers. The security guard was supposed to make his/her rounds on the entire bottom floor of the mall, the second floor of the mall, the food court, restrooms, and three separate trash rooms. Based on that testimony, plaintiff was able to show that if it took the manager 7 minutes to cross the entire mall, there was no way that the security guard on patrol could complete his entire round of top and bottom floors of the mall, the food court, restrooms, and inspect Trash Room Y specifically every 15 minutes.

  Defendants’ liability expert, Alex Balian, contradicted his own opinion which led to the Supreme Court decision in the landmark case of Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200, 1206 and his own articles on the subject of premises. He testified that the Ortega case no longer applies for premises liability because maintenance procedures and retail operations have changed. He also intimated that his articles were really only about supermarkets and were taken out of context. Mr. Balian did not conduct a site inspection. He did not testify about whether or not the premises was a dangerous condition nor about whether plaintiff was, herself, negligent. As a result, plaintiff was able to show that defendants did not have reasonable inspections of the property to discover unsafe conditions. Since there was no evidence that an inspection was made within a reasonable time before the incident, that proved that the condition existed long enough so that defendants using reasonable care would have discovered it.

• Defendant's Contentions:

  That defendants had no notice of the dangerous condition and that their inspections were adequate. Defendants’ liability expert, Alex Balian, testified that defendants had proper floor inspection procedures wherein security patrol officers inspected Trash Room Y every 15 minutes and the housekeeping manager, Rafaela Hernandez, inspected Trash Room Y every hour. Mr. Balian testified that documentation of inspections was not required.