A plaintiff in a slip-and-fall case must prove not only that a reasonable system of inspections should have been in place, but also that such inspections probably would have detected the specific hazard that caused the fall. Where the hazard is inconspicuous and the only evidence of its visibility comes from a person who saw it from an unusual vantage point (such as lying on the floor), this will not support an inference that a routine inspection would have detected it. Post-incident observations made with attention directed to a specific area after a complaint are not probative of detectability during routine inspections.
The full text is available to signed-in members.