Dykeman v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

The question presented in this case is whether defendant, owner of a supermarket, had constructive notice of a foreign substance on the floor constituting a dangerous condition which caused injuries to plaintiff, where the only proof of such notice was testimony concerning the existence of that substance after plaintiff had stepped into it and had fallen. At first blush, the proof of such notice, where there was no specific testimony that the condition had existed for any stated period of time before plaintiff fell, seemed insufficient. However, the court permitted the case to go to the jury…