Negri v. Stop and Shop, Inc.

New York Court of Appeals · 1985 · Torts

TortsPremises liabilityConstructive noticeconstructive noticepremises liabilityslip and fallcircumstantial evidenceprima facie case

Facts

The injured plaintiff fell backward while shopping in defendant's store and hit her head directly on the floor, where a lot of broken jars of baby food lay. There was testimony that the baby food was dirty and messy. A nearby witness did not hear any jars fall or break during the 15 or 20 minutes before the accident. There was also evidence that the aisle had not been cleaned or inspected for at least 50 minutes before the accident, and possibly for as long as two hours.

Issue

Whether the circumstantial evidence was legally sufficient to permit a jury to infer that defendant had constructive notice of the slippery condition created by broken jars of baby food. Put differently, the question was whether plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case such that dismissal was error.

Rule

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs and giving them every reasonable inference, a court may not dismiss where circumstantial evidence permits a jury to infer that a dangerous condition existed for a sufficient length of time before the accident for defendant's employees to discover and remedy it. When plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case, dismissal is improper; if a verdict is thought to be against the weight of the evidence, the proper remedy is a new trial rather than dismissal.

🔒

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

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

At a supermarket in Buffalo, Lena Ortiz slipped on a puddle of peach juice near a display of glass bottles. A customer standing nearby testified that the liquid was sticky, darkened with dirt, and spread in several streaks, and that she had not heard any bottle break during the prior 20 minutes. Store logs showed no employee had inspected that aisle for 65 minutes before the fall.

If the store moves to dismiss at the close of Lena's evidence, how should the court rule?

Explanation. The governing rule is that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and giving every reasonable inference, dismissal is improper if circumstantial evidence permits a jury to infer the dangerous condition existed for a sufficient length of time for employees to discover and correct it. Here, the dirty, spread-out condition, the nearby witness hearing no break for 20 minutes, and the lack of inspection for 65 minutes are enough to make out a prima facie case.