Antim v. Fred Meyer Stores, Inc., 251 P.3d 602

Elizabeth Antim sues Fred Meyer Stores and Cleaning Services Group (CSG) for negligence and negligent supervision after tripping on a folded floor mat in a Fred Meyer coffee aisle.
Store manager inspected the aisle about 25 minutes before the fall and saw the mat lying flat; cleaning crew allegedly not in the area at that time.
Antim testified she did not notice the mat before the fall and could not recall how or when it became folded.
Incident report indicated the mat was flipped over and Antim tripped over a rolled corner; multiple affidavits and deposition testimony offered competing explanations for how the mat became folded.
District court granted summary judgment for Fred Meyer and CSG, finding no genuine issue of material fact as to breach of duty; Antim sought reconsideration, which was denied.
Appellate court affirmed summary judgment, holding no genuine issue of notice (actual or constructive) and that the mat’s folded condition did not establish breach; costs awarded on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Antim raise a genuine issue of material fact on breach of duty?	Antim argues folded mat caused hazard and breaches existed.	Record shows no plausible evidence of how/when mat folded; speculation only.	No genuine issue; summary judgment proper.
Was there actual notice of the dangerous condition?	Folded mat likely caused by CSG; thus actual notice.	Multiple plausible explanations; no proof mat was observed folded by any employee.	No genuine issue; lack of direct evidence of actual notice.
Was there constructive notice of a dangerous condition?	Condition persisted up to 25 minutes before fall; store should have known.	Antim failed to prove duration or hazard nature; evidence is speculative.	No genuine issue; no constructive notice shown.
Did the district court abuse its discretion on reconsideration?	Admissibility and credibility of manager's affidavit were misapplied.	No abuse; record supported the court’s reasoning.	No abuse of discretion; denial of reconsideration affirmed.
Should costs and attorney fees be awarded on appeal?	Generally, no award if not frivolous.	Prevailing party may recover costs; not awarding attorney fees.	Costs awarded on appeal; no attorney fees.

Tommerup v. Albertson's Inc., 101 Idaho 1 (1980) (landowner liability requires notice of dangerous condition)
Hansen v. City of Pocatello, 184 P.3d 206 (Idaho 2008) (speculation cannot replace proof of notice in summary judgment)
McDonald v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 707 P.2d 416 (Idaho 1985) (premises liability for hazards present for a noticeable period)
Giles v. Montgomery Ward Co., 491 P.2d 1257 (Idaho 1971) (constructive notice requires evidence of hazard's durational awareness)
Jasko v. F.W. Woolworth Co., 494 P.2d 839 (Colo. 1972) (slippery floor hazards may be inherent from store operations)
Holzheimer v. Johannesen, 871 P.2d 814 (Idaho 1994) (landowner duties depend on invitee status and safety maintenance)