In Oregon slip-and-fall cases, the plaintiff must provide evidence that (a) the substance was placed there by the store; (b) the store knew the substance was there but did not use reasonable diligence to remove it; or (c) the substance was there for such a length of time that the occupant should have discovered and removed it by the exercise of reasonable diligence. In Kummer v. Fred Meyer Stores, the circuit court granted summary judgment because the plaintiff lacked admissible evidence for any of these three options.
The plaintiff argued a genuine issue of material fact was present because she had an expert who would "testify as to the industry standard for inspecting and cleaning floors and provide an opinion that the defendant's inspection and cleaning schedule deviated from that standard." Oregon's Court of Appeals agreed with the circuit court's conclusion that the expert's opinion did not prevent summary judgment. "The expert testimony described by [the plaintiff] could not have conceivably addressed" how long the substance had been on the floor. Thus, the plaintiff lacked admissible evidence to prove a mandatory element of her case and summary judgment was affirmed.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
