## Facts

- Francis Sheehan entered a self-service supermarket operated by Roche Brothers in Quincy, Massachusetts.
- In a front crossing aisle near the customer service counter, Sheehan slipped and fell.
- After falling, Sheehan observed grape pulp on the floor; the store manager observed a small piece of grape with a small amount of clear liquid nearby.
- Sheehan suffered severe injuries, including a subdural hematoma, requiring extended hospitalization and rehabilitation.
- Grapes were sold in a self-service produce area in individually sealed bags that were easily opened by hand and placed in a wicker basket on a tiered display.
- The record suggested uncertainty about the frequency of floor inspections in the area of the fall and an absence of written inspection records.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Roche Brothers because Sheehan could not show the store had actual or constructive notice of the specific grape on the floor.

## Issues

1. Whether a customer in a self-service grocery store slip-and-fall case must prove the proprietor had actual or constructive notice of the specific hazardous condition.
2. Whether premises-liability doctrine should instead apply a mode-of-operation approach that permits liability when the store’s method of operation makes the hazard reasonably foreseeable and the store fails to take reasonable preventive measures.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court reversed summary judgment and remanded.
- The court adopted the mode-of-operation approach for grocery-store slip-and-fall cases involving self-service operations.
- Under that approach, a jury could find the risk of grapes on the floor was reasonably foreseeable from the store’s self-service merchandising and packaging/display choices.
- Given the evidence about inspections and the high-traffic location, a reasonable jury could conclude Roche Brothers failed to take adequate preventive steps, making summary judgment improper.

## Legal Principles

- In self-service grocery store slip-and-fall cases, a plaintiff need not prove the proprietor had actual or constructive notice of the specific substance when the hazard is reasonably foreseeable from the store’s chosen mode of operation.
- Liability may be found where (1) the mode of operation makes it reasonably foreseeable that third parties will create recurring dangerous conditions, and (2) the proprietor failed to take reasonable steps to prevent injuries from those foreseeable conditions.
- The mode-of-operation doctrine does not impose strict liability; the plaintiff must still prove negligence, including unreasonable preventive measures under the circumstances.
- On summary judgment, courts must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and deny judgment where a reasonable jury could find negligence under the governing standard.

## Conclusion

Massachusetts shifted grocery-store slip-and-fall analysis from requiring proof of notice of the specific spill to a mode-of-operation framework that focuses on foreseeable, recurring hazards created by self-service merchandising and the reasonableness of the store’s preventive measures.


Sheehan v. Roche Bros. Supermarkets, Inc., 448 Mass. 780, 863 N.E.2d 1276 (Mass. 2007)