context: In this case, the provenance of the wet substance on which Coale slipped remains a total mystery. There is simply no evidence that Metro-North or NHPA put it there. Nor is there such a dearth of alternatives, as there was in Hairston and Corsale, to conclude by way of inference that only Metro-North or NHPA could have been responsible for the spill.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 92 F.3d 702, 709
citation_a.parenthetical: "a possessor will be deemed to have had actual notice if it is affirmatively shoum that an agent or employee of the possessor created the dangerous condition"
citation_a.sentence: See Holbrook v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 414 F.3d at 745 (declining to find that defendant had created dangerous condition on grounds that defendant was not “clear cause ” of plaintiffs injuries) (emphasis added); see also Scheerer v. Hardee’s Food Systems, Inc., 92 F.3d 702, 709 (8th Cir.1996) (“a possessor will be deemed to have had actual notice if it is affirmatively shoum that an agent or employee of the possessor created the dangerous condition”) (emphasis added).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 414 F.3d 745, 745
citation_b.parenthetical: declining to find that defendant had created dangerous condition on grounds that defendant was not "clear cause " of plaintiffs injuries
citation_b.sentence: See Holbrook v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 414 F.3d at 745 (declining to find that defendant had created dangerous condition on grounds that defendant was not “clear cause ” of plaintiffs injuries) (emphasis added); see also Scheerer v. Hardee’s Food Systems, Inc., 92 F.3d 702, 709 (8th Cir.1996) (“a possessor will be deemed to have had actual notice if it is affirmatively shoum that an agent or employee of the possessor created the dangerous condition”) (emphasis added).