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
- 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.