Court Opinion

ID: 9707828
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:22:40.767734+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:38.625218
License: Public Domain

*137White, J.,
dissenting.
In slip and fall cases we have said that “[t]he plaintiff has the burden to prove by the greater weight of the evidence that the defendant either created the condition, knew of the condition, or, by the exercise of reasonable care, would have discovered the condition.” Russell v. Board of Regents, 228 Neb. 518, 520, 423 N.W.2d 126, 128 (1988).
The evidence clearly establishes that at the least, no mopping or inspection of spills took place in the defendant store between 5:50 and 7 p.m. It is further established that liquid soap was present on the floor of the aisle and was the cause of the fall and injury. The plaintiff thus clearly was entitled to have submitted to the jury whether by reasonable care the defendant ought to have discovered the condition.
The majority has expanded the plaintiffs burden to include a duty to offer evidence of how the hazardous condition occurred and its duration. This was not the law in this State prior to this decision. I dissent.
Lanphier, J., joins in this dissent.