Opinion ID: 1766609
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Presence of a foreign substance due to negligence

Text: The first issue is whether there was evidence raising a material question of fact whether the alleged presence of the brown, slimy substance was located on aisle four as a result of The Food Center's negligence. Ms. Sanders did not see the substance prior to her fall and could not positively identify it. She could only speculate that the substance was tobacco juice. She had no idea how the alleged substance came to be on aisle four. The Food Center produced evidence that no employee saw a foreign substance on the floor the day of the accident. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Sanderses, we cannot say there was any evidence whatever as to how the foreign matter came to be present or that The Food Center personnel had any knowledge of its presence. In a similar case, Diebold v. Vanderstek, supra , Diebold slipped and fell on a green, slimy substance which allegedly accumulated in the parking lot of the Vandersteks' shopping center. We upheld the granting of summary judgment in the Vandersteks' favor. The Vandersteks supported their motion with an affidavit indistinguishable from Rydner's affidavit. They also introduced Diebold's deposition which indicated he had no knowledge how the substance came to be on the parking lot or whether the Vandersteks knew about the substance prior to the fall. In Bank of Malvern v. Dunklin, supra , we held the Trial Court should have directed a verdict in the Bank's favor because there was insubstantial evidence with respect to the nature of the substance which allegedly caused Dunklin's fall or how it came to be on the Bank's lobby floor. As here, there was no evidence that the substance was on the floor due to the Bank's negligence. See also Johnson v. Arkla, Inc., supra ; Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Willmon, supra ; Willis v. Crestpark of Wynne, 279 Ark. 456, 652 S.W.2d 625 (1983) (evidence insufficient to show the presence of the substance on the floor was the result of the defendant's negligence).