Janis v. Nash Finch Co.
2010 SD 27, 780 N.W.2d 497, 2010 S.D. LEXIS 29 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner's duty of care to an invitee is established by the foreseeability of harm, which must be determined by the totality of the surrounding facts and circumstances, not solely by the absence of prior similar incidents.
Facts:
- On a very cold January morning, Francis Janis went to Prairie Market to purchase food.
- Janis was wearing rubber-soled work boots.
- He entered the supermarket through an automatic sliding glass door and stepped onto a commercial rug placed on the tile floor.
- On his second step, the rug slid from under his feet, causing him to fall and injure his knee.
- After his fall, Janis discovered a patch of ice on the tile floor that had been hidden underneath the rug.
- There was no evidence that any other person had previously fallen on a patch of ice inside the Prairie Market entryway.
Procedural Posture:
- Francis Janis sued Nash Finch Company (Prairie Market) in a South Dakota trial court, alleging negligence.
- After discovery, Prairie Market filed a motion for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Prairie Market, holding that the store did not owe a duty of care because the harm was not foreseeable due to a lack of prior similar incidents.
- Janis, as appellant, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Supreme Court of South Dakota.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the foreseeability of harm, which establishes a landowner's duty of reasonable care to a business invitee, determined by the totality of the circumstances rather than being negated solely by the absence of prior similar incidents?
Opinions:
Majority - Severson, Justice
Yes. The foreseeability of harm, which establishes a landowner's duty of care, is dependent upon all the surrounding facts and circumstances, and a lack of prior similar incidents is not determinative. The court explicitly rejects the 'prior similar incidents' rule, stating it contravenes the policy of preventing future harm and unfairly dictates that 'the first victim always loses.' Foreseeability is a question of law determined by the court, based not on 'prophetic vision' but on what a reasonable person would anticipate. In this case, it was foreseeable that on a cold January day, a rug placed on a tile floor immediately inside a frequently opening door could conceal ice formed from tracked-in moisture, thus creating an unreasonable risk of harm. Therefore, Prairie Market owed Janis a duty of reasonable care, and the question of whether it breached that duty is a matter of fact for a jury to decide.
Concurring - Zinter, Justice
Yes. A landowner's duty of care is determined by the totality of the circumstances and is not dependent on the existence of prior similar incidents. The concurrence agrees with the majority's reasoning but writes separately to emphasize that the landowner's duty under the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343 involves a dual inquiry. A duty arises only if (1) the possessor knows or by the exercise of reasonable care would discover the condition, AND (2) the possessor should realize that the condition involves an unreasonable risk of harm (foreseeability). The majority focused on the foreseeability prong because that was the basis for the trial court's error, but both elements are necessary to establish a duty regarding unknown or concealed conditions. On remand, the jury must consider both whether the risk was foreseeable and whether Prairie Market, by exercising reasonable care, would have discovered the ice.
Analysis:
This decision formally rejects the rigid 'prior similar incidents' rule for determining foreseeability in South Dakota premises liability law, adopting the more flexible 'totality of the circumstances' standard. This lowers the evidentiary bar for plaintiffs seeking to establish a landowner's duty of care, particularly in cases involving a 'first-time' accident of a specific nature. The ruling clarifies that while the existence of a duty is a question of law for the court, the foreseeability of a specific harm depends on a factual inquiry into all circumstances, not just historical accident data. This shift ensures that landowners cannot rely on a clean record to avoid liability for failing to anticipate reasonably predictable hazards.
