Kaney v. Custance
Annotate this CaseThe Court of Appeal concluded that a plaintiff is not barred as a matter of law from proving causation in a slip and fall case if there were no witnesses to the fall and he or she remembers being on stairs and then waking up in pain but does not remember the fall itself. The court concluded that the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment in favor of defendant on plaintiff's negligence complaint. In this case, although plaintiff cannot remember falling on plaintiff's stairs, the circumstantial evidence would permit a trier of fact to make a reasonable and probable inference that the condition of the stairs, including the absence of a handrail, was a substantial factor in the fall. Accordingly, the court reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to defendant.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.