What evidence does the Spaydes need to use to prove the dangerous condition of the attic floor?

The Spaydes cite to a photograph of the attic floor. But it does not resolve the dangerous condition issue. The photograph was taken after the accident and it only shows a small remaining broken portion of the plastic cover. Consequently, what it looked like at the time of the incident must be shown by other evidence. (Lopez v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 705, 716.) The Spaydes claim Fernandez and Salas could see a raised floor area; consequently, they did not have to warn them of a hazard. But the plastic cover was not transparent, it was either "white" or "beige" in color. That and other evidence support an inference that merely looking at it would not reveal: 1) its thickness, 2) the lack of flooring under it,

Page 8