McDonald v. Safeway Stores, Inc.
109 Idaho 305, 707 P.2d 416, 1985 Ida. LEXIS 529 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a business's mode of operation creates a continuous and foreseeable risk of harm to customers, an injured party is not required to prove the business had actual or constructive notice of the specific dangerous condition that caused the injury.
Facts:
- On April 17, 1981, a busy Good Friday, Safeway began conducting an in-store ice cream demonstration at 10:00 a.m.
- The demonstration involved handing out food and napkins to customers, including infants, amid abnormally large crowds.
- At approximately 1:00 p.m. that day, Alta McDonald was shopping in the Safeway store.
- While walking down an aisle, McDonald slipped on a cream-colored substance that appeared to be melted ice cream.
- As a result of the fall, McDonald sustained severe injuries, requiring the replacement of a pre-existing total hip transplant.
Procedural Posture:
- Alta McDonald and her husband, Donald McDonald, filed a lawsuit against Safeway in a state trial court for negligence and loss of consortium.
- Safeway filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court denied.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial, which resulted in a special verdict finding Safeway 100% negligent and awarding damages to the McDonalds.
- The trial court denied Safeway's post-trial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, remittitur, or a new trial.
- Safeway, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Idaho.
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 business's mode of operation that creates a foreseeable risk of harm to customers relieve an injured party of the burden to prove the business had actual or constructive notice of the specific dangerous condition that caused the injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Huntley, J.
Yes. A plaintiff is relieved of the burden to prove a business had actual or constructive notice of a specific hazard if the business's chosen mode of operation created a foreseeable and continuous risk of that hazard occurring. The court distinguished this case from traditional slip-and-fall cases involving an 'isolated incident,' like the one in Tommerup v. Albertson’s, Inc. Instead, the court found the facts more analogous to Jasko v. F. W. Woolworth Co., where the defendant's method of selling pizza on wax paper to standing customers created a reasonable probability that food would be dropped, thus creating a continuous danger. Here, Safeway's decision to conduct an ice cream demonstration for large crowds, including infants, on a busy day was a method of doing business that made it foreseeable that ice cream would be spilled and create a hazard. Therefore, the negligence lies in the creation of the risky condition itself, and the conventional notice requirement does not apply.
Analysis:
This decision adopts the 'mode of operation' rule, creating a significant exception to the traditional notice requirement in premises liability law. It shifts the legal focus from whether the business had notice of a specific spill to whether the business's practices foreseeably created the dangerous condition in the first place. This lowers the evidentiary burden for plaintiffs injured by hazards arising from a business's promotional or service activities, such as food sampling. Consequently, businesses must consider the inherent risks of their operational choices, as they may be held liable for foreseeable accidents without the plaintiff needing to prove the business knew about the specific hazard at issue.
