Jasko v. F. W. Woolworth Co.
494 P.2d 839 (1972)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a business's method of operation makes dangerous conditions continuous or easily foreseeable, a plaintiff injured by such a condition does not need to prove the business had actual or constructive notice of the specific dangerous item that caused the injury.
Facts:
- F.W. Woolworth Co. operated a store that included a pizza-hoagie counter.
- The store sold between 500 and 1000 slices of pizza daily, served on waxed paper sheets.
- There were no tables or chairs provided for customers, leading many to eat their pizza while standing in a main aisle.
- The floor in the aisle was made of terrazzo.
- An associate manager testified that porters were assigned to 'constantly' sweep the floor in the area where pizza was consumed.
- Jasko, a customer, was walking past the pizza counter when she slipped on a piece of pizza that was on the floor, fell, and sustained injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Jasko (plaintiff) brought an action against F.W. Woolworth Co. (defendant) in a state trial court to recover damages for her injuries.
- At the close of the plaintiff's case, the trial court granted the defendant's motion for a directed verdict and dismissed the lawsuit.
- Jasko, as the appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Colorado Court of Appeals.
- The Colorado Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court, affirmed the trial court's dismissal.
- Jasko, as the petitioner, successfully petitioned the Colorado Supreme Court, the state's highest court, for a writ of certiorari.
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 a plaintiff in a premises liability action need to prove that the business had actual or constructive notice of the specific dangerous condition when the business's operating method makes the occurrence of such dangerous conditions reasonably foreseeable?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Groves
No. A plaintiff is not required to prove that the business had notice of the specific dangerous condition when the business's operating methods make such conditions continuous or easily foreseeable. The traditional notice requirement is based on the premise that a dangerous condition is an unusual occurrence. However, that logic does not apply when a proprietor's business model, such as selling pizza on waxed paper to be eaten by hundreds of standing customers in an aisle, creates a reasonable probability that food will be dropped, leading to a continuously dangerous condition. The store's own practice of having porters 'constantly' sweep the area demonstrates its awareness of this foreseeable hazard. Therefore, the case should be decided by a jury on the question of negligence, rather than being dismissed for a failure to prove notice.
Analysis:
This decision establishes the 'method of operation' or 'mode of operation' rule as an exception to the traditional notice requirement in premises liability cases. It significantly lowers the burden of proof for plaintiffs injured in businesses where self-service or high-volume, ready-to-eat food sales create a foreseeable, recurring risk of spills. The focus shifts from the plaintiff's difficult task of proving when a specific hazard appeared to an analysis of whether the defendant's business practices created a continuous and foreseeable risk of harm. This precedent has been widely adopted and makes it easier for plaintiffs to survive summary judgment motions in similar slip-and-fall cases against grocery stores, food courts, and quick-service restaurants.
Unlock the full brief for Jasko v. F. W. Woolworth Co.