Where liability is "predicated upon the existence of a dangerous condition it is necessary to show that the party against whom negligence is claimed had actual notice of the dangerous condition or that the condition had existed for such length of time that, in the exercise of reasonable care, its existence should have become known and corrected." Sullivan v. AboveNet Comm'ns, Inc. , 112 A.3d 347, 356 (D.C. 2015) (quoting Anderson v. Woodward & Lothrop , 244 A.2d 918, 918 (D.C. 1968) (per curiam) ). "The negligence of a store proprietor in such a case is premised on an obligation of due care to protect customers from risks created by employees or risks created by other customers." Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Morgan , 253 A.2d 452, 453 (D.C. 1969). If she cannot show actual notice, "it is incumbent upon the injured customer to establish a factual predicate sufficient to support a finding that the condition existed for such length of time that it should have become known and have been corrected.
βTo make out a prima facie case of liability predicated upon the existence of a dangerous condition it is necessary to show that the party against whom negligence is claimed had actual notice of the dangerous condition or that the condition had existed for such length of time that, in the exercise of reasonable care, its existence should have become known and corrected.β Sullivan v. AboveNet Commc'ns, Inc., 112 A.3d 347, 356 (D.C. 2015) (quoting Anderson v. Woodward & Lothrop, 244 A.2d 918, 918-19 (D.C. 1968)). The problem for Plaintiffs is that their pleadings contain no allegation that the VA knew that there was a second camera.
To prove liability βpredicated upon the existence of a dangerous condition it is necessary to show that the party against whom negligence is claimed had actual notice of the dangerous condition or that the condition had existed for such length of time that, in the exercise of reasonable care, its existence should have become known and corrected.β Anderson v. Woodward & Lothrop, 244 A.2d 918, 918 (D.C. 1968) (per curium).
Constructive notice exists when the dangerous condition has "existed for such length of time that, in the exercise of reasonable care, its existence should have become known and corrected." Sullivan v. AboveNet Commc'ns, Inc., 112 A.3d 347, 356 (D.C. 2015) (quoting Anderson v. Woodward & Lothrop, 244 A.2d 918, 918-19 (D.C. 1968)). WMATA here contends that it lacked both actual and constructive notice of the slippery condition that Plaintiff alleged caused her injury.
Sullivan v. AboveNet Commc'ns, Inc. , 112 A.3d 347, 356 (D.C.2015) (quoting Anderson v. Woodward & Lothrop , 244 A.2d 918, 918β19 (D.C.1968) (per curiam)); accordWilson v. WMATA , 912 A.2d 1186, 1190 (D.C.2006). Put another way, to prove constructive notice, βa plaintiff must present evidence: (1) that a dangerous condition existed, and (2) that the dangerous condition existed for such a duration of time that the [defendant] should have been aware of it if [it] had exercised reasonable care.β
"In the District of Columbia, in order to make out a prima facie case of liability based on the existence of a dangerous condition, a plaintiff must show that the defendant `had actual notice of the dangerous condition or that the condition had existed for such length of time that, in the exercise of reasonable care, its existence should have become known and corrected.'" Thomas v. Grand Hyatt Hotel, 957 F.2d 912, 1992 WL 50386, at *1 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (unpublished) (quoting Anderson v. Woodward Lothrop, 244 A.2d 918, 918-919 (D.C. 1968)); see also Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority v. Jeanty, 718 A.2d 172, 175 (D.C. 1998) ("the passenger has the burden of proving negligence."). The defendant may be liable if it had actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition, but failed to correct or remove the danger.
See, e.g., District of Columbia v. Cooper, 483 A.2d 317, 321 (D.C. 1984). To make out a prima facie case of liability predicated upon the existence of a dangerous condition it is necessary to show that the party against whom negligence is claimed had actual notice of the dangerous condition or that the condition had existed for such length of time that, in the exercise of reasonable care, its existence should have become known and corrected. Anderson v. Woodward Lothrop, 244 A.2d 918, 918-19 (D.C. 1968). To prove constructive notice, a claimant must present evidence that a dangerous condition existed and that the dangerous condition existed for such a duration of time that the defendant should have been aware of it had the defendant exercised reasonable care.
To make out a prima facie case of liability predicated upon the existence of a dangerous condition it is necessary to show that the party against whom negligence is claimed had actual notice of the dangerous condition or that the condition had existed for such length of time that, in the exercise of reasonable care, its existence should have become known and corrected.Anderson v. Woodward Lothrop, 244 A.2d 918 (D.C. 1968). In fact, plaintiff concedes that she "must show there was a substance . . . on the floor, how it came to be on [the] floor, and that defendant was aware of the substance."
," the plaintiff must prove that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the condition. Sullivan v. AboveNet Commc'ns, Inc., 112 A.3d 347, 356 (D.C. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Anderson v. Woodward &Lothrop, 244 A.2d 918, 918 (D.C. 1968) (per curiam)). Moreover, in cases alleging negligence in the maintenance of a building, such as a parking garage, "the plaintiff must also show that the defendant either knew or should have known-i.e., had constructive notice-of the hazardous condition" in order to establish the requisite duty of care.
βTo make out a prima facie case of liability predicated upon the existence of a dangerous condition it is necessary to show that the party against whom negligence is claimed had actual notice of the dangerous condition or that the condition had existed for such length of time that, in the exercise of reasonable care, its existence should have become known and corrected.β Anderson v. Woodward & Lothrop, 244 A.2d 918, 918β19 (D.C.1968) (per curiam). In deciding this issue, we reemphasize that, on appeal from the grant of a motion for judgment as a matter of law, this court will view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and will give that party the benefit of every permissible inference from the evidence.