Moore v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
111 Cal. App. 4th 472, 3 Cal. Rptr. 3d 813, 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7533 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under California premises liability law, a plaintiff in a slip-and-fall case must prove that the business owner had actual or constructive knowledge of the specific dangerous condition that caused the injury. A business's 'mode of operation,' even if it makes such conditions more foreseeable, does not eliminate the plaintiff's burden to prove this notice requirement.
Facts:
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Wal-Mart) leased space inside its Ceres, California store to a McDonald's franchise.
- Wal-Mart permitted customers to carry and consume food from McDonald's while shopping throughout the main store, despite periodic intercom announcements and a sign asking them not to.
- The store's maintenance crew performed a safety sweep of the entire store every one and a half hours, and all employees were trained to look for and clean up hazards.
- Juanita Moore was shopping in a main aisle of the Wal-Mart when she slipped on a single french fry and fell.
- The area where Moore fell had been swept approximately 30 to 45 minutes before her accident.
- As a result of the fall, Moore sustained a cracked patella and torn cartilage in her knee.
Procedural Posture:
- Juanita Moore filed a negligence action based on premises liability against Wal-Mart in a California trial court.
- The trial court refused Wal-Mart's request to instruct the jury on the requirement of actual or constructive notice of the specific hazard.
- The trial court instead instructed the jury that liability could be based on Wal-Mart's knowledge that harmful acts of third persons were likely to occur on its premises.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Moore, finding Wal-Mart negligent and awarding $725,000 in damages.
- Wal-Mart, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the California Court of Appeal, challenging the jury instructions.
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 owner's 'mode of operation,' which makes the regular occurrence of hazardous conditions foreseeable, eliminate the plaintiff's burden under California law to prove the owner had actual or constructive notice of the specific hazardous condition that caused their injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Levy, J.
No. A business owner's mode of operation does not eliminate the plaintiff's burden to prove the owner had actual or constructive notice of the specific hazard that caused the injury. Established California law, as affirmed in Ortega v. Kmart Corp., requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that the owner had either actual knowledge of the dangerous condition or constructive knowledge, meaning the condition existed for a sufficient length of time that a reasonably prudent owner should have discovered it. The court rejected the 'mode of operation' rule adopted by other states, which would impose liability based on the foreseeability of hazards arising from business practices. Adopting such a rule would effectively make store owners insurers of their patrons' safety, which is contrary to California negligence principles. While a business's practices may heighten the standard of care (e.g., requiring more frequent inspections), it does not change the fundamental element of notice that the plaintiff must prove.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the traditional notice requirement in California premises liability cases, explicitly rejecting the more plaintiff-friendly 'mode of operation' rule. The ruling clarifies that a business's choices that increase risk do not shift the burden of proof, but instead raise the standard of what constitutes reasonable care, such as requiring more frequent inspections. This holding protects business owners from being held strictly liable for any and all injuries on their premises, reinforcing the principle that liability must be based on negligence, not merely the occurrence of an accident. For future slip-and-fall cases in California, plaintiffs cannot simply argue that a store's business model is inherently risky; they must produce evidence that the specific hazard existed long enough for the store to have reasonably discovered it.
