By Michael Shemtoub, trial attorney, Beverly Law. Updated November 2026.
Slipped on a spill at a California store?
Leave your name and phone. We call back today, in English or Spanish. The consultation is free and confidential.
Free consultation · English y Español · No fees or costs unless we win
The short answer: the store must have known, or should have
Under Civil Code section 1714(a), a person who fails to use ordinary care in managing property answers for the injuries that failure causes. For a store, the California Supreme Court puts it this way: the store does not insure your safety, but it owes customers reasonable care in keeping the store reasonably safe (Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200, 1205).
Ortega adds that a store’s lack of knowledge is not a defense by itself. The question is whether the store knew about the spill, or would have with reasonable care, in time to mop it up or put out a warning. The shopper must prove it.
What a California jury is asked to decide
California juries get standard instructions known as CACI. CACI No. 1000 requires proof that the store owned, occupied or controlled the property, was negligent in using or maintaining it, and that its negligence was a substantial factor in harming you. CACI No. 1003 says the store was negligent if the condition created an unreasonable risk of harm, the store knew or reasonably should have known about it, and it failed to repair it, guard against it or give an adequate warning. That middle step is the notice question, and there are three ways to meet it.
| How the store is charged with knowing | What you show | Rule |
|---|---|---|
| The store created the hazard | An employee caused it while working, such as a product knocked over during stocking. The jury must then find the store knew. | CACI No. 1012 |
| Actual knowledge | An employee saw the spill or someone reported it, with time to act before you fell. | CACI No. 1003; Ortega, p. 1206 |
| Constructive knowledge | The spill was there long enough that reasonable care would have found it in time to clean it, guard it or warn about it. | CACI No. 1011; Ortega, pp. 1206 to 1213 |
How Ortega lets a gap in inspections fill in the timeline
Richard Ortega slipped on a puddle of milk by a refrigerator at a Torrance Kmart and tore ligaments in his knee. No one could say how long the milk had been there. The former manager testified that Kmart kept no written inspection records, that an employee usually walked the aisle every 15 to 30 minutes, and that the milk could have been there up to two hours.
The Supreme Court let the verdict for Ortega stand. A shopper may prove how long a hazard existed with circumstantial evidence, and proof that the area was not inspected within a reasonable time lets the jury infer the milk had been on the floor long enough for Kmart to discover it (pp. 1210, 1212 to 1213). The court set no fixed number of minutes. A self-service store may need to inspect more often (p. 1205). The jury may draw the inference but does not have to (fn. 1), and a store that inspected reasonably has not breached its duty even if a customer is hurt (p. 1211). CACI No. 1011 now carries the same rule into the jury room.
Arguments that do not prove notice
- The fall itself. Under Ortega, guesswork about how long a hazard existed is not enough, and negligence is not inferred just because an accident happened.
- “Spills happen here all the time.” In Moore v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 472, a shopper slipped on a french fry in a main aisle of the Ceres Wal-Mart, which leased space to a McDonald’s whose customers often ate while they shopped. The trial judge left notice out of the jury instructions, and the shopper won. The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that a store’s “mode of operation” does not remove the shopper’s burden to prove the store knew or should have known of the hazard.
Moore still helps shoppers. When a store’s practices raise the risk of hazards, the court said, ordinary care calls for more precautions to match. That bears on how often such a store should check its floors.
Evidence that shows how long a spill was there
Most California spill cases turn on constructive notice. The steps for collecting each item below are on our slip and fall evidence page.
| Evidence | What it can show |
|---|---|
| Video of the aisle from before the fall | When the spill appeared, who walked past it, and whether an employee saw it |
| Sweep, safety walk or floor inspection logs | When the spot was last checked, by whom, and whether the schedule was kept that day |
| Staffing and zone assignments | Whether anyone was responsible for that aisle when you fell |
| Condition of the substance | Dried edges, a crust or cart tracks can suggest a spill that sat for a while. In a 1949 case Ortega cites, a judgment for the injured patron was upheld where the substance had been on the floor long enough to form a crust. |
| Incident report and employee statements | What staff saw and said right after the fall |
If evidence goes missing, Evidence Code section 413 and CACI No. 204 allow a jury that finds a party intentionally concealed or destroyed evidence to decide the evidence would have been unfavorable to that party. Judges give it only when there is evidence of suppression, so ask for the video in writing right away.
Obvious spills and your own share of fault
Under CACI No. 1004, a store need not warn about a condition so obvious that a person could reasonably be expected to notice it. It still must use reasonable care to protect against the risk when it is foreseeable that the condition may injure someone who has to encounter it out of necessity.
The store may also blame you for looking at a shelf or your phone. In Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804, the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff’s own negligence does not bar recovery and that damages are reduced in proportion to the plaintiff’s share of fault. More examples are on our page about comparative fault in California, Texas and Washington.
| Share of fault the jury gives you | Effect on the damages awarded |
|---|---|
| 0 percent | No reduction |
| 25 percent | Reduced by 25 percent |
| 60 percent | Reduced by 60 percent; you still recover the other 40 percent |
Deadlines that apply to a store fall
| Step | Deadline | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Lawsuit against the store for a personal injury | Generally 2 years from the injury | Code Civ. Proc. 335.1 |
| Written claim to a city, county or other public entity, for example after a fall on a public sidewalk outside the store | 6 months after the claim accrues, usually the date of the fall | Gov. Code 911.2 |
| Store video | No legal deadline, but unrequested footage may be overwritten | Ask in writing right away |
What this means for your case
Notice is usually proved with records the store controls, so act early:
- Before you leave, tell a manager and get the incident report number and the names of the employees who came over.
- Photograph the spill close up and from several feet back, showing its size, edges, any tracks and any cone or sign.
- Write down the time, the aisle and anything an employee said, such as “someone already reported that.”
- Within days, send the store a letter asking it to save camera footage from well before and after the fall, that day’s floor inspection or sweep records, the schedule showing who covered that area and its incident file.
- See a doctor promptly and save every medical record and bill.
Read more on our California store slip and fall lawyer page, or call Beverly Law at (310) 552-6959 for a free review in English or Spanish. You owe no fees or costs unless we win.
Common questions
A manager told me no employee saw the spill. Do I still have a case?
Possibly. A manager’s account speaks only to actual knowledge, and California also asks whether the store should have known because the spill was there long enough for a reasonable inspection to catch it. Under Ortega v. Kmart, evidence that the aisle was not inspected within a reasonable time can support that finding.
Is there a set number of minutes a spill must sit before the store is responsible?
No. Ortega says California cases impose no exact time limits. The jury decides, based on all the circumstances, whether the spill existed long enough that a store using reasonable care would have found and fixed it.
What if an employee spilled something or knocked a product over?
Under CACI No. 1012, if the store or an employee acting within the job created the condition, the jury must conclude the store knew about it. That settles only the knowledge question. You still have to show the condition created an unreasonable risk of harm and the store failed to fix it, guard against it or warn about it.
A store lets customers eat and drink while they shop. Is it automatically liable for food on the floor?
No. In Moore v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the Court of Appeal held that a store’s mode of operation does not excuse the shopper from proving notice. The court added that higher-risk practices call for more precautions, which bears on how often the store should have checked.
How long do I have to sue a California store after a fall?
Generally two years from the injury under Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1. If a public entity is responsible, such as for a city sidewalk, a written claim is due within six months under Government Code section 911.2.
Ask a question
Not ready to call? Write your question and someone on our team will answer. No cost, no commitment.
Injury lawyer — Beverly Law
If you were hurt because of someone else in California, Texas or Washington, talk to a lawyer about your options. Free, confidential, English or Spanish. You owe no fees or costs unless we win.
Related pages
California store slip and fall lawyer · California slip and fall lawyer · Falls at Walmart in California · What evidence do you need in a slip and fall case? · Does a Washington store have to know about a spill? · Comparative fault in California, Texas and Washington
Sources
- California Civil Code section 1714, duty of ordinary care
- Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200, constructive notice and failure to inspect
- Moore v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 472, mode of operation and notice
- Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804, pure comparative negligence (Stanford SCOCAL)
- Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI), 2026 edition: Nos. 204, 1000, 1003, 1004, 1011, 1012
- California Evidence Code section 413, willful suppression of evidence
- California Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1, two-year limitation period
- California Government Code section 911.2, six-month claim deadline for public entities
Important: This page is general information, not legal or medical advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case is different; talk to a lawyer about yours. Last reviewed: November 11, 2026.