Opinion ID: 30756
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm;

Text: 13 (3) the owner/operator did not exercise reasonable care to reduce or eliminate the risk; and 14 (4) the owner/operator's failure to use such care proximately caused the plaintiff's injuries. 9 15 In this case, Wal-Mart did not contest that the plastic binder on the floor constituted an unreasonable risk of harm or that Dixon was in fact injured in a trip and fall caused by this binder. Wal-Mart disputes only Dixon's allegation that it had constructive knowledge of the presence of the plastic binder on the floor. Therefore, the sole issue on appeal is whether Dixon established a sufficient evidentiary basis on which a reasonable jury could find that Wal-Mart had constructive knowledge of the plastic binder's presence on the floor. 16