Rojas v. Supermarkets General Corp.
Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; April 14, 1997; New York; State Appellate Court
In a personal injury case, the plaintiff appeals a judgment from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which dismissed his complaint after the court granted the defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law at the close of the plaintiff's case. The incident occurred in a Pathmark supermarket, where the plaintiff slipped on grapes on the floor. Both the plaintiff and his fifteen-year-old son testified they did not see the grapes before the fall, describing them as crushed, dirty, discolored, and surrounded by footprints and wheelmarks. The son noted the presence of two or three customers in the aisle shortly before the accident. The court affirmed the judgment, emphasizing that in slip and fall cases, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant either created the hazardous condition or had actual or constructive notice of it. The court found no evidence that Pathmark created the condition or had actual notice of the grapes on the floor. Regarding constructive notice, the evidence suggested that the grapes could have been dropped shortly before the incident, making it speculative to conclude they were present long enough for Pathmark's employees to notice and remedy the situation. Additionally, the court upheld the Trial Judge's decision to preclude the plaintiff's expert witness from testifying, noting that the expert lacked recent experience in the supermarket industry and did not visit the accident site. The court determined that the issue of constructive notice did not require expert testimony, as it was within the jurors’ common experience. The plaintiff's other arguments were deemed meritless. The judgment was affirmed with costs.