James E. Hall v. Regal Entertainment Group

16-17122Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit11 dic 2017

Testo completo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES E. HALL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
REGAL ENTERTAINMENT GROUP,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-17122
D.C. No. 1:15-cv-01005-EPG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Erica P. Grosjean, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 7, 2017**
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges, and ELLIS,***
District Judge.
FILED
DEC 11 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
*** The Honorable Sara Lee Ellis, United States District Judge for the
Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 2 --

page 2
“Where [a] dangerous condition is brought about by . . . third persons . . . or
by other causes which are not due to the negligence of the owner, or his
employees, then to impose liability the owner must have either actual or
constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition[.]” Hatfield v. Levy Bros., 117
P.2d 841, 845 (Cal. 1941).
Hall alleges that Regal had constructive knowledge of the spill because: (1)
Regal’s ushers aren’t provided “carpet cleaner, cleaning solutions, or scrapers” to
clean spills; (2) no one addressed the spill for at least 30 minutes after Hall
reported it; and (3) Hall’s expert inspected the theater three years later and
observed “[s]lippery and sticky spots” on the carpet. These allegations may
indicate that Regal didn’t properly clean up spills after Hall slipped, but they have
no bearing on Regal’s constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition
beforehand. “In the absence of actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous
condition, the owner is not liable.” Moore v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 3 Cal. Rptr. 3d
813, 816 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Continua la tua ricerca in ChatGPT o Claude

Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.