1 cause of action 3 subarguments 5 documents
Whether Harbor Market knew or should have known about the liquid before Dawson fell.
Dawson alleges that the spill remained for forty minutes and that an employee had been told about it.
The complaint alleges that the liquid remained on the floor for about forty minutes.
A customer allegedly reported the spill to an employee before Dawson fell.
Harbor Market denies knowing about the spill or that it remained for forty minutes.
Motion for summary judgment
The motion argues that Dawson has no reliable evidence of how long the spill existed.
The inspection log records a clean aisle shortly before the fall.
The motion says there is no reliable evidence establishing when the spill occurred.
Opposition to summary judgment
Dawson responds that the customer's testimony supports prior notice even if the inspection log shows an earlier clean aisle.
The customer testified that the spill had been reported before the fall.
Dawson argues that the earlier inspection does not rule out later notice.
Order on summary judgment
The court finds conflicting testimony about notice and leaves that factual issue unresolved.
The order identifies a conflict between the prior-knowledge testimony and the inspection log.
No response drafted.