TortsPremises liabilityNegligenceslip and fallpremises liabilityactual noticeconstructive noticespecific notice
Facts
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, she slipped and fell in the defendant's store while walking past a pizza-hoagie counter and testified that she slipped on a piece of pizza on the terrazzo floor. An associate manager testified that 500 to 1000 people per day bought pizza slices there. The store provided no chairs or tables, and many customers stood in the aisle and ate pizza from waxed paper sheets. Porters constantly swept debris when pizza was being consumed.
Issue
Must a plaintiff in a store slip-and-fall case prove actual or constructive notice of the specific item on the floor when the store's method of operation makes such hazards continuous or easily foreseeable?
Rule
Ordinarily, liability for injuries from a dangerous condition requires proof that the proprietor had actual knowledge of the condition or constructive knowledge because it existed long enough that the proprietor should have discovered it. But when the proprietor's operating methods create dangerous conditions that are continuous or easily foreseeable, actual or constructive notice of the specific condition need not be proved; the plaintiff must still establish that the defendant's conduct was negligent.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
At Lakefront Market in Milwaukee, a deli counter sells loose olives in small paper trays to customers who commonly eat them while walking through a narrow aisle because the store provides no seating nearby. Employees testify that olive pits and pieces regularly land on the polished floor and that staff sweep the area throughout the day. Nina Flores slips on an olive fragment but cannot show how long that fragment was there.
If Nina sues the store for negligence, must she prove the store had actual or constructive notice of that specific olive fragment?
Explanation. Ordinarily, a plaintiff must show actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. But when the proprietor's operating methods create dangerous conditions that are continuous or easily foreseeable, the basis for requiring notice of the specific item disappears. Here, selling food for immediate consumption in a narrow aisle with recurring debris supports application of that rule. Nina still must prove the store acted negligently; the exception removes only the need to prove notice of the specific olive fragment. (Derived from Jasko v. F. W. Woolworth Co. (n.d.).)