Practice point: The Appellate Division affirmed dismissa, finding that, while the evidence demonstrated that defendant may have had notice of the spill which allegedly caused plaintiff's fall, it further established that defendant's employees did not have a reasonable time to remedy the condition before the accident occurred.
The claimed violation by defendant's employees of an alleged internal rule or guideline was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. Violation of a company's internal rules is not negligence in and of itself, and where such rules require a standard that transcends reasonable care, breach cannot be considered evidence of negligence. The alleged internal rule or guideline that plaintiff would invoke goes beyond the standard of ordinary care and cannot serve as a basis for imposing liability.
Student note: A defendant moving for summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case has the
burden of establishing, prima facie, that it neither created the
hazardous condition nor had actual or constructive notice of its
existence for a sufficient length of time to discover and remedy it.
Case: Byrd v. Walmart, Inc., NY Slip Op 03796 (2d Dept. 2015)
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow's issue: A motion for a change of venue.
