What is the test for determining whether a store owner is liable for injuries sustained by a customer as a result of faulty lighting fixtures?

court when it ruled on defendant['s] motion. [Citations.] In so doing, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff[] as the losing part[y], resolving evidentiary doubts and ambiguities in [its] favor. [Citation.]" (Martinez v. Combs (2010) 49 Cal.4th 35, 68.)

"It is well established in California that although a store owner is not an insurer of the safety of its patrons, the owner does owe them a duty to exercise reasonable care in keeping the premises reasonably safe. [Citations.]" (Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200, 1205.)

"'[T]o impose liability for injuries suffered by an invitee due to [a] defective condition of the premises, the owner or occupier "must have either actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition or have been able by the exercise of ordinary care to discover the condition, which if known to him, he should realize as involving an unreasonable risk to invitees on his premises . . . ."' [Citation.]" (Ortega v. Kmart Corp., supra, 26 Cal.4th 1200, 1206.) "The plaintiff need not show actual knowledge where evidence suggests that the dangerous condition was present for a sufficient period of time to charge the owner with constructive knowledge of its existence. . . . The owner must inspect the premises or take other proper action to ascertain their condition, and if, by the exercise of reasonable care, the owner would have discovered the condition, he is liable for failing to correct it. [Citation.]" (Id. at pp. 1206-1207.)

Page 21

In sum, then, "[a] store owner exercises ordinary care by making reasonable inspections of the portions of the premises open to customers . . . . [Citation.]" (Ortega v. Kmart Corp., supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 1205.)