Facts
- Francis Brown, a self-employed computer repairman, delivered computers to a public school district facilities building on a Monday morning.
- After parking near an entrance, Brown made multiple trips through an interior hallway between his van and a storage room, assisted by a district employee.
- On his final trip back to the van, Brown slipped and fell in the hallway.
- A fresh slice of lunch meat was found stuck to the sole of Brown’s shoe after the fall.
- The hallway floor had been swept the prior Friday afternoon.
- Between the sweeping and the accident, declarations/deposition testimony were obtained from all known persons who entered the hallway; no one reported seeing lunch meat on the floor before the accident.
- Although only district employees had keys, nonemployees were often present in the building; on the morning of the accident, at least three nonemployees were in the hallway area (including Brown).
- Brown sued the district for negligence based on a dangerous condition of public property under California Government Code § 835.
Issues
- Whether Brown produced sufficient evidence under Government Code § 835 to raise a triable issue that the district (a) created the dangerous condition, or (b) had actual or constructive notice of it in time to protect against it.
- Whether res ipsa loquitur could supply an inference of negligence sufficient to defeat summary judgment where the source and duration of a transient hazard on public property were unknown and nonemployees had access.
Decision
- The Supreme Court of California reversed the Court of Appeal and reinstated summary judgment for the district.
- Brown failed to present evidence that a district employee created the hazard or that the district had actual or constructive notice of it as required by § 835.
- Res ipsa loquitur did not apply because the hallway was not within the district’s exclusive control in the relevant sense, and the probabilities did not favor district negligence over third-party or nonnegligent explanations.
- With res ipsa unavailable, Brown did not meet his burden to show a triable issue after the district’s showing negating creation/notice.
Legal Principles
- Under Government Code § 835, public-entity liability for a dangerous condition requires proof of causation, foreseeability, and either: (a) creation by a negligent/wrongful employee act or omission within scope of employment, or (b) actual or constructive notice in time to take protective measures.
- Res ipsa loquitur permits (but does not compel) an inference of negligence only when the accident ordinarily does not occur without negligence, the instrumentality was within the defendant’s exclusive control, and the plaintiff did not contribute to the occurrence.
- Res ipsa loquitur cannot be used to bypass § 835’s statutory requirements when the hazard’s origin and timing are unknown and access by nonemployees or third parties makes defendant negligence no more probable than alternative causes.
- A public entity is entitled to summary judgment where undisputed evidence shows no triable issue on statutory elements of creation or notice and the plaintiff offers no admissible evidence creating a factual dispute.
Conclusion
The court held that a slip-and-fall on a transient substance in a public building hallway did not support res ipsa loquitur where the premises were not exclusively controlled in the relevant sense and the hazard’s source and duration were unknown; without evidence of creation or notice, § 835 liability could not be established and summary judgment for the public entity was proper.