In a recently decided case, a plaintiff sued a grocery store for injuries after she slipped and fell on a piece of watermelon at the store. A store employee had been handing out watermelon samples close to where the woman had slipped. The woman alleged that the grocery store was negligent because the floor was wet from the watermelon samples and posed a danger to customers. She claimed that the store either knew or should have known about the danger because offering watermelon samples in a busy section of the store created a danger in and of itself. But the plaintiff did not have evidence as to how long the piece of watermelon had been on the floor before she slipped on it.
The court found that the case failed because of the woman’s lack of knowledge as to the length of time the watermelon had been on the floor. The woman had to show that the danger posed was due to the store’s negligent conduct. The court explained that normally a plaintiff must demonstrate a store was negligent either because it knew that the danger existed or because it should have known about the danger but failed to do anything about it.
The court found that the woman could not do that in this case because there was no evidence that the store knew a piece of watermelon had dropped on the ground, or that it should have known it was there due to the length of time it had been on the floor. In addition, while the woman argued that the court should have found that the business’ decision to pass out watermelon by itself created a danger, the court rejected the argument. As a result, since she had no evidence as to the length of time the dangerous condition that caused her to fall existed, her case failed.