finding that, because the spill had not been discovered minutes earlier during the inspection process, it could not have been there long enough to impute constructive knowledge on the defendant
How later courts described this case
- finding that, because the spill had not been discovered minutes earlier during the inspection process, it could not have been there long enough to impute constructive knowledge on the defendant
- holding that, in ruling on a summary-judgment motion, record evidence must be viewed in a light most favorable to nonmovant
- describing how “other factors beyond the size of the spill should be considered” and highlighting Maddox as a good example of providing further evidence to overcome summary judgment
- four to five minutes an insufficient time to support a jury finding that defendant had constructive notice
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*784 THOMPSON, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
As the main opinion notes, our standard of review of the trial court’s summary judgment requires that we view the evidence in the light most favorable to Shirley Hale as the nonmovant. See Hanners v. Balfour Guthrie, Inc., 564 So.2d 412, 413 (Ala.1990). I agree with the main opinion that, even under that view of the evidence, Hale failed to make out a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Kroger employees had constructive notice of the baby-food spill that caused Hale’s alleged slip-and-fall injuries. I disagree with the main opinion’s conclusion, however, that the evidence before the trial court, when viewed in the light most favorable to Hale, failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Kroger employees had actual notice of the baby-food spill. Simply put, I believe that a jury presented with the evidence that was before the trial court could reasonably conclude that Kroger employees were aware of the baby-food spill before Hale slipped in it. Therefore, I must respectfully dissent.