Peralta v. Vons Cos., 235 Cal. Rptr. 3d 212

Background

On Feb. 2, 2014, Rose Peralta slipped and fell in the bakery area of a Vons store while wearing three- to four-inch heels; she did not see any substance on the floor before or after the fall.
A store manager (Pellet) inspected the scene immediately and found only pastry crumbs; she recorded a store "sweep" inspection less than eight minutes before the fall.
Rose filled out an accident form stating she "felt the floor was slippery" and later in deposition speculated she slipped on grease or oil; the trial court sustained objections to some of her speculative hearsay/opinion statements.
Plaintiffs (Rose and Raul) sued Vons for negligence/premises liability, alleging the flooring was hazardous (insufficient slip resistance when greasy) and inspections were inadequate.
Plaintiffs submitted an expert declaration (civil engineer Avrit) opining the floor would be dangerous if grease/oil were present and that the fall was consistent with slipping on a foreign substance; Vons argued there was no admissible evidence a foreign substance was present or that it had notice.
Trial court granted summary judgment for Vons; plaintiffs appealed and the appellate court affirmed, finding plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact on presence of a dangerous condition or causation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was a greasy/oily foreign substance on the floor causing the fall?	Peralta: Fall mechanics and expert opinion make it more likely than not a foreign substance (grease/oil) caused the slip.	Vons: No admissible evidence of any substance; immediate inspection found none; plaintiff’s statements were speculative/hearsay.	Held: No triable issue — plaintiffs failed to present admissible evidence showing a foreign substance existed or caused the fall.
Were Vons’s inspection/sweep practices inadequate or untimely?	Peralta: No employees were seen in the bakery during the 10–15 minutes Rose waited; inspections may have been insufficient.	Vons: Sweeps are recorded at least hourly; a sweep was recorded within eight minutes of the fall.	Held: Even assuming an inspection lapse, plaintiffs did not show a dangerous condition existed long enough to be discovered; no liability.
Can expert’s flooring slip-resistance opinion create causation?	Peralta: Expert opined flooring unsafe when greasy and that the fall pattern is consistent with slipping on a foreign substance.	Vons: Expert’s opinion is speculation absent proof the foreign substance was present at the time.	Held: Expert’s conditional/opinion evidence insufficient to establish causation without evidence the contaminant actually existed; speculation cannot defeat summary judgment.
Are plaintiffs’ post-fall statements about prior employee falls admissible to show notice?	Peralta: Manager told Rose employees had fallen there before — shows constructive notice.	Vons: Statement is hearsay; trial court sustained objection.	Held: Plaintiffs waived challenge to exclusion and cannot rely on the hearsay statement; properly excluded.

Key Cases Cited

Ortega v. Kmart Corp., 26 Cal.4th 1200 (2001) (store owner duty and notice principles for slip-and-fall cases)
Guz v. Bechtel National Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317 (2000) (standard: appellate review of summary judgment and excluding evidence to which objections sustained)
Miller v. Department of Corrections, 36 Cal.4th 446 (2005) (liberal construction of opposition evidence on summary judgment)
Lyle v. Warner Brothers Television Productions, 38 Cal.4th 264 (2006) (plaintiff must set forth specific facts showing triable issues)
Buehler v. Alpha Beta Co., 224 Cal.App.3d 729 (1990) (mere conjecture is insufficient to defeat summary judgment)
Lopez v. Baca, 98 Cal.App.4th 1008 (2002) (failure to challenge evidentiary rulings waives issue on appeal)
Vaughn v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 95 Cal.App.2d 553 (1950) (plaintiff must show aisles were in fact unsafe and causation)
Tuttle v. Crawford, 8 Cal.2d 126 (1936) (owner’s duty to keep floors safe)