## Facts

- Edna Jasko slipped and fell while walking in a main aisle of F.W. Woolworth’s Denver retail store near a pizza–hoagie counter, injuring herself.
- Jasko testified she slipped on a piece of pizza on the terrazzo floor.
- The pizza counter sold approximately 500 to 1,000 slices per day.
- The area had no chairs or tables; many customers stood in the aisle and ate pizza from waxed paper sheets.
- Store porters “constantly” swept debris in the area while pizza was being consumed.
- There was no evidence employees dropped the specific pizza piece, knew it was on the floor, or knew how long it had been there.

## Issues

1. In a slip-and-fall case arising from a proprietor’s method of selling food that makes floor debris foreseeable and recurrent, must the plaintiff prove the proprietor had actual or constructive notice of the specific item causing the fall?

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court reversed the directed verdict for Woolworth and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
- The court held that when a proprietor’s operating methods make dangerous floor conditions continuous or easily foreseeable, the plaintiff need not prove actual or constructive notice of the specific substance.
- The case was remanded for a new trial so a jury could determine whether Woolworth exercised reasonable care in light of its operating methods.

## Legal Principles

- Traditional premises-liability doctrine generally requires proof that the proprietor had actual knowledge of the hazardous condition or constructive knowledge because it existed long enough to be discovered through reasonable care.
- When the proprietor’s method of operation makes the occurrence of a hazardous condition continuous or easily foreseeable, the rationale for requiring proof of notice of the specific condition is eliminated.
- In method-of-operation cases, liability turns on whether the proprietor acted reasonably to protect invitees from the foreseeable, recurring risks created by the proprietor’s chosen manner of doing business.

## Conclusion

Because Woolworth’s high-volume pizza sales, lack of seating, and aisle consumption made food on the floor a foreseeable and recurring condition, Jasko was not required to prove notice of the particular pizza piece; the negligence question should have been submitted to the jury.


Jasko v. F.W. Woolworth Co., 177 Colo. 418, 494 P.2d 839 (Colo. 1972)