James v. Valley-Shore Y.M.C.A., Inc., 125 Conn. App. 174

Plaintiff Jennifer James and her husband swam at defendant Valley-Shore Y.M.C.A. on June 26, 2007 without incident; they used a pool ladder with metal steps and observed no slippery condition.
The following day, James slipped while entering the pool via the same ladder; she injured shoulder and knee.
Her husband felt a slimy, slippery residue on an underwater ladder step immediately after the fall, but neither notified the Y.M.C.A. at that time.
James reported the incident seven weeks later, stating only that she slipped on the steps and not mentioning any slippery substance.
Defendant moved for summary judgment asserting no genuine issue of material fact on actual or constructive notice and causation.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant; James appealed challenging constructive notice evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant had constructive notice of the specific defect	James argues sufficient evidence shows a condition existed long enough for notice.	Valley-Shore contends no proof of specific defect notice or duration; evidence shows only general conditions.	No genuine issue; defendant had no constructive notice of the specific defect.

Fisher v. Big Y Foods, Inc., 298 Conn. 414 (2007) (notice must be of the specific defect)
Riccio v. Harbour Village Condominium Assn., Inc., 281 Conn. 160 (2007) (plaintiff must prove notice of the specific defect)
Monahan v. Montgomery, 153 Conn. 386 (1966) (knowledge cannot be inferred from general premises conditions)
Kirby v. Zlotnick, 160 Conn. 341 (1971) (distinguishes general conditions from specific defect notice)
Kelly v. Stop & Shop, Inc., 281 Conn. 768 (2007) (residue must show specific defect notice; timing important)
Kurti v. Becker, 54 Conn.App. 335 (1999) (discusses notice requirements in premises liability)
Boretti v. Panacea Co., 67 Conn.App. 223 (2001) (notice analysis on appellate level)