Nisivoccia v. Glass Gardens, Inc.
2003 N.J. LEXIS 6, 818 A.2d 314, 175 N.J. 559 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a business's mode of operation creates a foreseeable risk of a dangerous condition, such as spillage from its method of packaging and displaying goods, an injured customer is entitled to an inference of negligence and is not required to prove that the business had actual or constructive notice of the specific hazard that caused the injury.
Facts:
- Glass Gardens, Inc., doing business as Shop-Rite of Rockaway, sold grapes packaged in clear plastic bags that were open at the top and had slits on the sides.
- The store's assistant manager acknowledged that grapes could fall onto the floor when handled by customers or employees, particularly in the produce aisle and at the checkout area.
- Katherine Nisivoccia was a customer at the Shop-Rite.
- While approaching the entry to a checkout aisle, Nisivoccia slipped on a grape with her heel and fell.
- After her fall, Nisivoccia observed at least five other loose, unsquashed grapes on the floor within a three-foot diameter around her.
Procedural Posture:
- Katherine Nisivoccia filed a negligence complaint against Glass Gardens, Inc. in the state trial court.
- At the close of trial, the court denied Nisivoccia's request for a jury instruction based on the mode-of-operation rule.
- The trial court granted a directed verdict in favor of Glass Gardens, Inc.
- Nisivoccia, as appellant, appealed the decision to the Appellate Division.
- The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The Supreme Court of New Jersey granted Nisivoccia's petition for certification.
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 the mode-of-operation rule, which allows an inference of negligence without proof of notice, apply when a customer slips on loose grapes near the checkout lanes, if the supermarket's method of packaging grapes in open-topped, vented bags makes spillage a foreseeable hazard?
Opinions:
Majority - LaVecchia, J.
Yes. The mode-of-operation rule applies because the risk of grapes falling to the floor was a foreseeable consequence of the store's method of packaging and selling them. Ordinarily, a plaintiff must prove the business had actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition. However, under the mode-of-operation rule, when a substantial risk of injury is inherent in the business's method, the plaintiff is relieved of this burden. Here, packaging grapes in open-topped, vented bags created a foreseeable risk of spillage during customer handling, not only in the produce aisle but also at the checkout area where items are unloaded. The court reasoned that the 'mode of operation' includes the packaging of the goods, customer handling during checkout, and the characteristics of the goods themselves. Therefore, a jury could infer negligence, and the burden shifted to the store to prove it exercised reasonable care.
Concurring - Long, J.
Yes. The mode-of-operation rule applies based on the hazardous packaging itself, irrespective of the specific location of the fall within the store. The critical fact is that the store's chosen method of operation—using open-topped, slitted bags for produce likely to fall out—created an inherent risk of injury. This hazardous mode of operation meant that an injury from a resulting spill could foreseeably happen anywhere in the supermarket. Therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to an inference of negligence simply by proving this hazardous method, without needing to analyze the specific dynamics of the checkout area or the motility of grapes.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the application of the mode-of-operation rule in premises liability cases. It clarifies that the rule is not confined to the specific self-service area where products are displayed, but extends to any area where the hazardous condition is a foreseeable consequence of the business's operational choices, such as packaging. This lowers the evidentiary burden for plaintiffs, making it easier to survive motions for directed verdicts by shifting the focus from proving the store's notice of a specific spill to the foreseeability of the risk created by the store's general practices. Consequently, businesses must be more vigilant about risks inherent in their entire chain of merchandising, from packaging to checkout.
