Customer slipped and fell on water in Met Food in the Bronx, and sued. Manager testified that he personally inspected the floor near accident location on a constant basis, that no spills were observed, and no complaints made. Customer’s statement was that the water was dirty and contained the marks of the wheels of carts failed to suggest that the water was present for a sufficient time to give rise to constructive notice. Customer loses case.
To defend a slip and fall suit, vague testimony as to general cleaning practices lacking specific details is not sufficient. Lack of constructive notice can be shown, for example, by evidence of general daily cleaning practices and evidence as to when the area in question was last cleaned and inspected relative to the time when the person fell, including a specific inspection or cleaning procedure in the area of the accident.
Cordero v. MET Foods (Bronx)