Rodriguez, M. v. Kravco Simon Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an “open question about spoliation precludes the entry of summary judgment”
• explaining that “with the open possibility that . . . employees failed to check the floors as scheduled prior to [the plaintiff’s] fall, it is not clear that [the defendants’] are entitled to judgment as a matter of law” (emphasis added)
• determining plaintiff in slip and fall case failed to prove defendant shopping mall was negligent
• explaining store owner owes duty of care to patrons; however, no action is necessary if store owner does not know about spill or spill did not exist long enough to impute store owner’s knowledge of it
• “Without evidence of how long it takes the liquid in question to become sticky or dry, the jury would be unable to determine whether the spill was present for a sufficiently long time to warrant a finding of constructive notice.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).