A recently filed complaint in the Fourth District California Court of Appeal raises significant questions regarding proving causation when no cause is known, and what circumstances give rise to the duty to preserve surveillance footage for a defendant in a slip-and-fall case. Although this case is unpublished or not certified for publication, the lawsuit highlights important issues that businesses should monitor, such as what triggers the duty to preserve evidence when faced with a possible lawsuit, and what is needed to show causation in a slip-and-fall case. This lawsuit exemplifies various old legal principles: that causation cannot be based on an expert’s opinion as to legal issues alone, and that the occurrence of an incident on the premises, alone, does not warrant a defendant to guess that they will be subject to litigation such that they have a duty to preserve evidence.

Plaintiffs are the children of the decedent, Sylvia Weathers, who tripped and fell outside of defendant’s dental office after her routine dental appointment. Sylvia Weathers was a patient at the practice for more than 15 years; during that time, she entered and exited his office at least 18 times without incident. In June 2021, she visited the premises for her routine dental appointment and was dropped off by her friend, Charlene Seeley, who saw Ms. Weathers after her fall but did not witness the fall itself. When asked what happened, Ms. Weathers only stated that she tripped and gestured generally to her right; she never told anyone why she fell or if any condition at defendant’s office caused her to fall. Ms. Weathers underwent a surgery to remove a blood clot from her brain, but she died eight days after her fall.

The complaint was filed in June 2023, approximately two years after the fall, alleging a cause of action for wrongful death arising from their mother’s death. “They contended that [defendant’s] negligence and failure to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition directly caused Weathers’s death.”[1]

What is the Appeal About?

Defendant moved for summary judgment in the trial court in October 2024 on the basis that “there was no causal connection between his conduct and Weathers’s death.”[2] Plaintiffs filed an opposition, stating their mother’s death was “directly caused by an unsafe ramp on [defendant’s] property, and that [defendant] knowingly and deliberately destroyed video evidence showing the incident.” [3] In the opposition, plaintiffs relied on the expert declaration of Brad Avrit “that stated the single-step transition to the handicap ramp on [defendant’s] property was a dangerous condition […] he reviewed the complaint, historical Google street views, and 10 digital photographs provided by counsel.”[4]

Further, the video footage of Ms. Weathers walking immediately before her fall was viewed by Dr. Choe one week after the incident, but he stopped watching it before the fall occurred because he had to attend to his other patients – and the footage, through no conduct of Dr. Choe’s, was automatically overwritten by the system’s settings and limitations of the security camera system before it could be saved.[5] Plaintiffs alleged that Dr. Choe destroyed the recording, and that he had a duty to preserve the evidence because “it was ‘reasonably foreseeable’ he ‘would face litigation, given that [he] immediately knew [he] faced liability for the hazardous condition that caused the fall.’”[6]

In December 2024, the trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment. While doing so, they gave little weight to Mr. Avrit’s declaration and found that plaintiffs were not able to create a triable issue of fact, or, in other words, prove by a preponderance of the evidence that there existed a dangerous condition on the premises and that this dangerous condition was what caused plaintiffs’ mother’s fall.[7] This appeal followed.

The Legal Issues Presented

The main issue presented was whether the trial court erred in finding that plaintiffs failed to create a triable issue of material fact as to causation in this wrongful death case, where both children brought suit against defendant’s dental office for their mother’s fatal injuries when she slipped and fell outside of the dental office. In other words, whether plaintiffs were able to prove that there existed a dangerous condition on defendant’s property such that would cause a reasonable person, like decedent, to fall and sustain fatal injuries.

The underlying issue also surrounded whether the defendant had the duty to preserve the video surveillance footage, and whether he was on sufficient notice that there is the likelihood that litigation is probable given that a person tripped and fell outside of his premises and sustained fatal injuries.

Why This Matters

This case is particularly important because of how the court established that an accident alone does not establish negligence: Plaintiffs must present evidence supporting a reasonable inference that the defendant’s negligence substantially contributed to plaintiff’s injuries. [8] The central point the court made was the distinction between identifying a potentially dangerous condition and proving that the condition was what caused the incident in question – neither of which plaintiffs in this case were able to do.

Further, the court rejected plaintiffs’ expert declaration because it lacked factual foundation connecting the ramp’s alleged defects and the fall and because it opined regarding legal conclusions to ultimate facts.[9] The expert identified that the single-step transition to the handicap ramp was unsafe but cited no evidence whether Weathers encountered that step or not when she fell, nor did he attach any of the images he relied on in his analysis.[10] As such, the court emphasized expert testimony must explain how the evidence supports causation and conclusory opinions of an unsafe condition, notice, or liability cannot fill gaps in the factual record in the name of an expert opinion.[11] As the court stated in its analysis, plaintiffs “must introduce evidence which affords a reasonable basis for the conclusion that it is more likely than not that the conduct of the defendant was a cause in fact of the result. A mere possibility of such causation is not enough; and when the matter remains one of pure speculation or conjecture, or the probabilities are at best evenly balanced, it becomes the duty of the court to direct a verdict for the defendant.”[12]

Finally, the court rejected the argument that defendant had the duty to preserve the surveillance video because it was “reasonably foreseeable” that defendant “would face litigation, given that [he] immediately knew [he] faced liability for the hazardous condition that caused the fall.”[13] The court outlined several circumstances where defendants should reasonably anticipate litigation soon after the incident, giving rise to a duty to preserve – such as: “a serious accident or injury; relationship of parties, including prior lawsuits; conduct of the parties after an event suggesting future litigation was anticipated; and ‘statements or conduct’ that would put a defendant on notice of a possible lawsuit.”[14] Here, the court found no additional circumstances that would have triggered a duty to preserve before the surveillance video was overwritten by Dr. Choe’s security system.[15] As the court emphasized, the fact an accident happened outside of the premises, absent further circumstances or conduct among the parties, is not sufficient on its own[16] to automatically trigger a duty to preserve.[17]

Conclusion

This case highlights the importance of a concrete evidentiary link between an alleged dangerous condition and a plaintiff’s injury. The court made it clear that neither the occurrence of a fall nor an expert’s opinion of a potential defect can substitute for evidence supporting causation. This unpublished opinion also highlights that the duty to preserve surveillance footage turns on when litigation becomes reasonably foreseeable, which can be assessed by businesses in light of the circumstances known at the time the surveillance footage is viewed or stored. For businesses and property owners, the practical takeaway here is to promptly document reported accidents and assess whether the circumstances suggest a potential claim. Preserving relevant footage before it is automatically overwritten can help establish what actually happened and reduce later disputes over missing evidence.[18]

Keep Reading

Getting to Verdict One Issue at a Time The Scariest Thing This Halloween: Nuclear Verdicts®! Special Report: Five Key Takeaways on Florida Plaintiff Tactics Plaintiffs’ Attempts to Expedite an Appeal Gone Wrong: Maniago v. Desert Cardiology Consultants’ Medical Group, Inc. Good Record-Keeping is the Best Medicine Confidential Does Not Mean AI-Proof: Updating Protective Orders for AI The Arizona Pocket Fire: Do Not Wait for the Flames, Act Now! The Reason for Reason Waiving the Past to Inflate the Future: When Plaintiffs Take Corenbaum Too Far

Sources

[1] Weathers, et al. v. John C. Choe, DDS, Inc., No. D087132, 2026 WL 2545323, at 2 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2026) (unpublished opinion).

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id. at p. 5.

[6] Id.

[7] Id. at p. 2.

[8] Id. at p. 3.

[9] Id. at p. 4.

[10] Id. at p. 3.

[11] Id. at p. 4.

[12] Id. at p. 4, citing Edwards v. California Sports (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1284, 1287; Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200, 1205.

[13] Id. at p. 5, citing Victor Valley Union High Sch. Dist. v. Superior Court (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 1121.

[14] Victor Valley Union High Sch. Dist. v. Superior Court (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th at pp. 469-470.

[15] Id. at p. 5.

[16] The court specifically stated that there was no litigious relationship among the parties before this accident, there were no discussions of a suit on the horizon between Dr. Choe and the family members ever, Dr. Choe did not even know that the injuries sustained were very serious at the time he viewed the video and he also did not know that there was a dangerous condition outside of his office. The court emphasized as well that the suit was brought two years after the accident. (see [16] Weathers., No. D087132, 2026 WL 2545323, at 5 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2026) (unpublished opinion).

[17] Id.

[18] Publication Note: Weathers, et al. is an unpublished opinion and does not constitute binding precedent. Under California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115, it generally may not be cited or relied upon in other court actions, except in the limited circumstances specified in subdivision (b), unless subsequently certified for publication or ordered published.