The injured party was shopping and walking down the "household products" aisle of a discount department store when all of a sudden she slipped and fell causing serious injuries to her body. The injure party claimed the floor was super slippery, which made her left foot slide back causing her fall. When the paramedics arrived, they too noticed the floor was or seemed slippery as they were treating the injured party. The manager of the store flatly denied that there was any debris or liquid on the floor; and according to some eyewitness testimony and some written records from a sweep log, the floor was in fact routinely waxed and buffed using a commercial floor compound that provided a nonslip type finish. The injured party and her lawyer retained a safety expert to evaluate the floor to help determine if the store did indeed follow custom and practice in the inspection, follow up, and maintenance of the floor in question. The expert employed a Coefficient of Friction Measurement Test that resulted in values that suggested the floor was not slippery; above a 0.50 measurement. Also, at the time of the expert's inspection of the floor, there was no condition present that could have caused the injured party to fall.
After careful review and examination of the merchandise on the aisles revealed that the majority of items being sold were products of aerosol spray cans, polishes for furniture, and other dusting compounds; this was very interesting. It was determined that during normal business hours, customers would spray the products to smell them and the fine mist from the spray would eventually settle on to the floor. Now, when certain parts of the floor were measured by the safety expert, it was found to be very slippery. The coefficient readings would go above 0.18. Due to the store's routine sweep logs verifying sweeping and periodic inspection of the floor surface, this activity would have more than likely removed the overspray. However, the jury still found the store at fault (negligent) in its lack of sweeping during the daytime. No evidence of overspray on the day of the fall was ever presented, but something must have caused the floor to be overly slippery, the test spraying of the cans did appear to be a common activity. Thus, the injured party's attorney argued that both the hazard and the test spraying were foreseeable and the store should have done a better job in sweeping the area on a more regular basis; better than what it did.
Thus, mysterious cause on this slip and fall was solved by the jury. However, this should show you, the reader, that mysterious causes can still prevail in a slip and fall jury trial.