Gonzalez v. Interstate Cleaning Corp. CA4/2, E081220

Plaintiff Grace Gonzalez slipped and fell on orange slices in a common walkway at Ontario Mills Shopping Center, owned by Ontario Mills Limited Partnership (OMLP) and maintained by Interstate Cleaning Corporation (ICC).
The incident occurred around 3:00 p.m. on December 31, 2017; neither Gonzalez nor her companions saw the spill prior to the fall or observed how long it had been present.
ICC porters were responsible for regular floor inspections, with employees trained to inspect each area every 20 to 30 minutes using a rigorous training regimen and electronic tracking (the "Lighthouse" system).
ICC submitted evidence showing the area where Gonzalez fell was inspected 8–9 minutes before her fall.
The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding no evidence of actual or constructive knowledge of the spill.
Gonzalez appealed, challenging the sufficiency and nature of the inspection evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of inspection evidence	Defendants lacked proof of reasonable inspection; did not produce inspection employee's testimony	Provided evidence of systematic, recent inspection by trained porter and electronic tracking	Store owner may use training/inspection records and credible monitoring evidence
Constructive knowledge of the spilled oranges	Area possibly inspected in an insufficient manner; spill might have been discoverable by due care	Area was inspected 8–9 minutes before fall following reasonable protocols	8–9 min interval was not enough to infer constructive knowledge or breach of duty
Requirement of employee/testimonial evidence	Only testimony from inspector (Ms. Villa) or video could show proper inspection	Employee declarations and electronic data are sufficient without direct testimony from inspector	No legal requirement to introduce testimony of actual inspecting employee
Effect of untimely preservation of video	Defendants failed to preserve potentially relevant video evidence, should be penalized	Claim letter sent to wrong address; no request to trial court for adverse inference or sanctions	No penalty for failure to retain video in absence of request for evidentiary presumption

Ortega v. Kmart Corp., 26 Cal.4th 1200 (Cal. 2001) (establishes standard for constructive notice in premises liability and use of circumstantial evidence)
Peralta v. The Vons Companies, Inc., 24 Cal.App.5th 1030 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (proof of active inspections in premises liability via maintenance records)
Kesner v. Superior Court, 1 Cal.5th 1132 (Cal. 2016) (scope of duty in premises liability based on control and management of property)
Girvetz v. Boys’ Market, Inc., 91 Cal.App.2d 827 (Cal. Ct. App. 1949) (short period of existence of spill, without more, is insufficient for liability)
Louie v. Hagstrom’s Food Stores, Inc., 81 Cal.App.2d 601 (Cal. Ct. App. 1947) (uses circumstantial evidence to infer constructive notice of dangerous condition)