Court Opinion

ID: 7731654
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-30 19:45:49.362099+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:48.058191
License: Public Domain

I would reverse the summary judgment entered in favor of Church's Chicken; therefore, I must respectfully dissent.
A plaintiff is not required to prove notice in cases when the defendant created the hazard. Billings v. K Mart Corp., 654 So.2d 530
(Ala. 1995); Dunklin v. Winn-Dixie of Montgomery, Inc., 595 So.2d 463
(Ala. 1992); and Edwards v. Kroger Co., 681 So.2d 223 (Ala.Civ.App. 1996). "In such a situation, notice of the hazardous condition is imputed to the defendant." Billings, supra at 532. The evidence in this case tends to show that Foster slipped on a wet mop string on an otherwise clean and dry floor in the fast-food restaurant. Who but a restaurant employee would have recently mopped the floor?
I believe that Foster presented substantial evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact regarding the creation of the hazard at Church's Chicken. Therefore, I *Page 450 
believe that summary judgment was improper in this case.
ROBERTSON, P.J., concurs.