G. Gonzalez

Topic: Personal Injury/Premises Liability

Case Name: Grace Gonzalez v. Interstate Cleaning Company; Simon Property Group; Melvin Simon & Associates; Simon Debartolo Group; JP Morgan Chase; Ontario Mills; And Does 1 To 50,; San Bernardino County Superior Court Case No. CIVDS1938974

Result: Granting Motion for Summary Judgment; January 10, 2023

Plaintiff: Grace Gonzalez

Defendants: Interstate Cleaning Corporation erroneously sued and served as Interstate Cleaning Company and Ontario Mills Limited Partnership erroneously sued and served as Ontario Mills, Simon Property Group, and Simon Debartolo Group, Inc.

Counsel for Plaintiff: Arturo T. Salinas, Esq. of Law Offices of Jacob Emrani

Counsel for Defendants: Peter E. Garrell, Esq. and John M. Kennedy, Esq. of GARRELL COHON KENNEDY LLP

Judge: Hon. Wilfred J. Schneider, Jr.

Court: Superior Court of the State of California County of San Bernardino

Department: S32

Facts: Plaintiff Grace Gonzalez claims that on December 31, 2017, she slipped and fell on smashed oranges in front of the Converse store at the Ontario Mills mall. The Incident was allegedly witnessed by Plaintiff’s two granddaughters. Although Plaintiff claims otherwise, Plaintiff did not report the Incident to mall security. Accordingly, no Incident Report was created and there is no CCTV video of the Incident. Per Plaintiff, the incident occurred approximately 3 p.m. Counsel then sent a notice of representation and demand to preserve evidence to “Ontario Mills Mall; Attn: Claims Department”” which was never received as it failed to include a suite number, was addressed to the “Claims Department” and there is no “Claims Department” at the property. Plaintiff claimed injury to her right knee as a result of the Incident. She had arthroscopic surgery on her right knee, which she claimed did not alleviate the pain.

Injuries: ACL tear, tear of the posterior horn medial meniscus, cleft tear of the lateral meniscus as well as joint effusion. Plaintiff had two cortisone injections in her right knee in 2018 and on February 26, 2019 she had a right knee arthroscopy with partial medial meniscectomy

Plaintiff’s Contentions: Plaintiff claims to have slipped and fallen on smashed oranges on the floor of the Ontario Mills Mall common area and claims her granddaughters had seen the oranges just moments before plaintiff fell and as they turned to warn her of the smashed oranges, Plaintiff fell. Plaintiff’s experts claimed the floor had an unsafe coefficient of friction when “squished” oranges were present, that a customer could not easily see contaminants such as oranges on the ground as they do not provide an obvious visual contrast from the surrounding floor surface, that it is foreseeable that a customer would not look at the ground where they are walking because the mall intentionally directs the customers attention toward merchandise displays and advertisements; that Defendants’ policies and procedures fell below the standard of care because: there was no incident report prepared, video retention policy was inadequate, floor inspections should have been more frequent and made with a dry mop; that Defendants’ cost to eliminate/mitigate the risk of injuries to customers was minimal when compared to the substantial risk of injuries to customers

Defendants’ Contentions: Plaintiff’s sole cause of action for premises liability fails as a matter of law because there is no admissible evidence that Defendants’ conduct breached the duty of care. Defendants’ conduct was reasonable as a matter of law. The state of the art GPS and Blue Tooth electronic employee tracking system called Lighthouse confirmed the area had been examined and inspected eight (8) to nine (9) minutes before the alleged incident and no three-dimensional debris was found. Plaintiff further claimed an employee named “Jessica” from the Converse store helped her up after the fall but investigation revealed that Converse did not have any employees named Jessica at the time of the fall. Plaintiff has no admissible evidence that Defendants had actual notice of the alleged substance on the floor at any time and the nature and extent of Plaintiff’s claimed injuries were not a result of the fall. Plaintiff had no admissible evidence that the documented inspections of the common area did not occur or were unreasonable.

Claimed Medical Specials: $36,197.65

Claimed Loss of Income: None

Experts:

Plaintiff’s Experts:

Fady Elias, M.D. Cedar Medical Group – Medical

Brad P. Avrit, P.E., Aperture Consulting – Liability/Policies and Procedures

Eris J. Barillas, C.X.L.T., C.P.S.I., Aperture Consulting - Liability

Defendants’ Experts:

Scott K. Forman, M.D. - California Orthopedic Specialists - Medical

Mark Blanchette, PhD – Paragon Forensics - Liability

Tris Morris – Shopping Center Policies and Procedures

Defendants’ Memorandum of Costs: $9,309.90

Settlement:

Plaintiff served a 998 for $124,999.00 on January 25, 2022

Defendants’ served a 998 for $5,001.00 on September 3, 2023

Status: Plaintiff has filed a Notice of Appeal from the order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants