Ortega v. Kmart Corp.
Supreme Court of California · 2001
26 Cal.4th 1200, pp. 1203, 1210–1213
Reviewed by Andrew (Andy) R. Gillin
California State Bar #45226 ↗ · Approval recorded November 4, 2026
How we record review approvalWhat brought the case to court?
A shopper fell on a spill in a store. The case raised questions about store inspections and whether the store should have found the spill.
The question before the court
Could a lack of reasonable inspections help support an inference that the store should have known of a spill?
What the court decided
The court allowed that inference from the proof. The plaintiff still had to establish the claim. A fall alone was not enough to make the store pay.
Where the rule has limits
This permits an inference from the proof. It does not make the store liable just because someone fell.
Read the actual decision
Ortega v. Kmart Corp. — full opinion ↗
Legal review is recorded above.
Questions this decision helps explain
Court decisions have distinct facts. Read the opinion and the qualifications in each guide before applying a rule to a different situation.