22.8 Floors|Slips and Falls

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

22.8 Floors/Slips and Falls. The mere occurrence of a slip and fall on the defendant’s property is not enough to prove negligence.¹¹² Generally, a plaintiff in a slip and fall case must prove the defendant’s negligence in one of the following ways: (1) the defendant or its employees caused the dangerous condition; (2) the defendant had actual notice of the dangerous condition; or (3) the dangerous condition existed long enough that, with reasonable care, the defendant could have found and corrected the condition.¹¹³

The mere fact that liquid has dripped onto a location in the past is not evidence of the defendant’s negligence as to a particular half-dollar size puddle.¹¹⁴ A plaintiff’s testimony that the milk spots upon which she slipped appeared fresh precluded her from showing the defendant’s notice.¹¹⁵ And the plaintiff’s inability to show how long a pebble had been on the walkway precluded her from recovery even though the restaurant was aware that pebbles were regularly tracked onto the walkway.¹¹⁶ In like manner, the existence of ice on a parking lot is not negligence because it cannot be shown that it existed long enough for the defendants to have been aware of it.¹¹⁷

But a defendant was liable for a plaintiff’s injury after she slipped on wet terrazzo—which was a material which becomes smoother as time goes on and is slippery for pedestrians when wet—after her high heel became lodged in a hole in the threshold.¹¹⁸ In still another case, the Arizona Supreme Court held that it was negligent for a movie theatre to not have lighting in a darkened theatre.¹¹⁹

Sidewalks and other walkways are often the source of slip and fall claims. In one case, the defendant was liable where the plaintiff fell on a deteriorated concrete walkway, because its condition was not transitory, such that the jury could infer notice.¹²⁰ In another, a sidewalk section elevated one inch over the surrounding sections was inferential of the defendant’s notice of the dangerous condition.¹²¹ In still another, a defendant was liable where a plaintiff slipped out of her chair because the chair had metal bottoms, and the floor was of smooth tile, resulting in a lower coefficient of friction than the industry standard.¹²²

But under the “mode of operation” rule, a plaintiff need not prove notice if the defendant could reasonably anticipate that hazardous conditions would regularly arise.¹²³ The rule is of limited application, however, and has only been applied to self-service supermarkets and department stores that serve soft drinks that can be carried about the store.¹²⁴

A plaintiff could not show, as a matter of law, that a hospital’s mode of...