Court Applies Mode-of-Operation Rule in New Jersey Slip and Fall

A slip and fall in a New Jersey Target led to a personal injury lawsuit against the store. The injured plaintiff slipped on a wet floor which was made slippery when somebody spilled a drink. Target filed a motion to dismiss the case, claiming that it did not have notice about the dangerous condition, so it could not be held liable for the slip and fall. The court denied the motion, invoking a rule known in premises liability law as the “mode-of-operation rule.”

Defendant Must Normally Have Actual or Constructive Notice of Dangerous Condition to be Liable for Slip and Fall

Normally, to prove a case of premises liability, the plaintiff has to prove that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition, but failed to warn of the danger or remedy it within a reasonable time. “Constructive” notice means even if the defendant didn’t actually know the condition existed, the defendant should have known about it, had a reasonable amount of care and diligence been applied.

New Jersey law recognizes an exception to this requirement of actual or constructive notice; this exception is known as the mode-of-operation rule. This rules states that the plaintiff need not prove actual or constructive notice where the dangerous condition is one which is likely to occur as a matter of probability, due to the nature of the business, the condition of the property, or a “demonstrable pattern of conduct of incidents.” When the plaintiff properly invokes this rule, it creates an inference of negligence, and the burden then shifts to the defendant to show that it in fact did exercise due care.

Target Should Expect Drink Spills Throughout Store and be Alert for Dangers

In the case of Katsaros v. Target Corp., Target argued the mode-of-operation rule shouldn’t apply because the slip and fall did not occur in a place where drinks were available for purchase.  The court didn’t buy this argument, however, since Target allows customers to purchase beverages and then carry them around the store. It is therefore reasonably foreseeable that drink spills are likely to occur throughout the store.

In support of its motion for summary judgment, Target did not show that it took reasonable steps to prevent the accident. The court held that there are issues of fact regarding whether Target was negligent or not, so the store is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The motion for summary judgment was denied, and the case may proceed to trial, if the parties do not settle along the way.