Timmer v. Riesling Associates, 4 Mass. L. Rptr. 14 (1995)

Even assuming that Timmer’s allegations are true and that she slipped on a foreign substance at the Mall, there is no evidence relating to the length of time the substance was on the floor. “Where, without action for which he is responsible, a dangerous condition arises, the law allows [an owner] reasonable opportunity to become informed of the danger and to take measures to remedy it.” White v. Mugar, 280 Mass. 73, 74 (1932). Further, the Supreme Judicial Court has upheld a jury instruction stating that “the mere unexplained presence of a foreign substance on the premises, and an accident occurring, does not, without more in and of itself establish negligence.” Gilhooley v. Star Market Co., Inc., 400 Mass. 205, 206 (1987).Thus, because an individual can slip and fall on a foreign substance, even in the absence of negligence, the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on Timmer’s res ipsa loquitur claim. ORDER