Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc.
26 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 321, 1983 Tex. LEXIS 287, 648 S.W.2d 292 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A store owner may be liable for an invitee's injuries resulting from a dangerous premises condition if the owner has actual or constructive knowledge of the unusually high risks associated with a self-service display, even without specific knowledge of the presence on the floor of the exact object causing the fall.
Facts:
- In October 1977, Gary Corbin slipped on a grape and fell directly in front of the self-service grape bin in a Safeway produce aisle.
- While sprawled on the store's green linoleum tile floor, Corbin noticed several ruptured and discolored grapes lying around him.
- Corbin saw no mat or other floor covering of any kind in the area where he fell.
- As a result of the fall, Corbin injured the collateral ligaments and kneecap of his right knee, requiring hospitalization and surgery.
- Safeway company policy required each store to keep large non-skid, non-slip walk-off mats in front of the grape display.
- Safeway recognized and knew from experience that grape bins were an unusually hazardous and continual source of slippery material due to customers frequently knocking or dropping grapes.
- Safeway considered these mats necessary because store employees were unable to adequately supervise the floor to ensure it remained free of grapes.
Procedural Posture:
- Gary Corbin sued Safeway Stores, Inc. in a trial court for damages resulting from personal injuries.
- The trial court granted Safeway’s motion for directed verdict, entering judgment for Safeway.
- Corbin appealed the trial court's judgment to the court of appeals (Corbin as appellant, Safeway as appellee).
- The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment for Safeway (Corbin as appellant, Safeway as appellee).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an invitee seeking damages for injuries from slipping and falling in a self-service store need to prove the store owner's actual or constructive knowledge of the specific object causing the fall, when the fall resulted from a known and unusually high risk inherent in the store's method of displaying goods?
Opinions:
Majority - Spears, Justice.
No, an invitee does not need to prove the store owner's actual or constructive knowledge of the specific object causing the fall when the injury results from a known and unusually high risk inherent in the store's self-service display method. The court held that such proof establishes a right for a jury to determine the store owner's liability. The court applied Section 343 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which states that a premises possessor is liable for harm to invitees from a condition if they know or should discover it involves an unreasonable risk, expect invitees won't discover the danger, and fail to exercise reasonable care to protect them. Crucially, the court emphasized that foreseeability of harmful consequences is the underlying basis for negligence liability, and therefore, Corbin was not required to prove a specific instance of negligence or knowledge of one specific hazard, but rather Safeway's knowledge of the foreseeable harm from its method of operation. Safeway admitted its full awareness of the unusually high risk associated with its self-service grape display, which prompted its policy requiring mats. Given that no mat was present, the jury could reasonably infer that Safeway, through its employees, failed to put the mat in place, satisfying the requirement of notice. The court concluded that reasonable jurors could find the grape bin without a mat posed an unreasonable risk, that Safeway did not use reasonable care by failing to implement preventive measures like mats, and that this negligence proximately caused Corbin's fall, thus warranting a jury trial. The court distinguished its prior decision in Coffee v. F.W. Woolworth Co., explaining that Coffee applied to cases where the only dangerous condition alleged was a specific item on the floor, not a dangerous method of display.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies and broadens the scope of premises liability in Texas by adopting the 'method of operation' theory. It establishes that store owners have a proactive duty to address known, recurring hazards created by their self-service displays, rather than merely reacting to individual spills. This ruling reduces the evidentiary burden on plaintiffs in slip-and-fall cases within self-service environments, allowing recovery without direct proof of the store's knowledge of the specific item causing the fall if the general method of operation inherently poses a foreseeable risk. The decision encourages retailers to implement robust preventative safety measures to mitigate known dangers, impacting how stores design and manage their self-service areas.
