Sheehan v. Roche Bros. Supermarkets, Inc.
448 Mass. 780 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a plaintiff slips and falls in a self-service business, Massachusetts adopts the 'mode of operation' approach to premises liability, which satisfies the notice requirement if the injury is attributable to a reasonably foreseeable dangerous condition inherent in the store's self-service operation, provided the owner failed to take reasonable precautions.
Facts:
- On May 1, 2003, the plaintiff entered a supermarket in Quincy owned by Roche Brothers Supermarkets, Inc.
- As the plaintiff walked through the store, he slipped and fell in the front crossing aisle near the customer service counter.
- After falling, the plaintiff observed the pulp of a grape on the floor where he fell.
- The store manager, Thomas Moynihan, also observed a small piece of grape and a small amount of clear liquid in the area.
- All grapes in this particular grocery store were packaged in individually sealed bags, easily opened by hand, and displayed in wicker baskets on a tiered table in the produce department, surrounded by mats.
- The plaintiff suffered severe injuries, including a subdural hematoma, and was hospitalized and required rehabilitation, incurring substantial medical expenses.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff filed a complaint in Superior Court seeking damages for injuries resulting from the defendant's alleged negligence.
- The defendant, Roche Brothers Supermarkets, Inc., filed a motion for summary judgment.
- A Superior Court judge granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, applying the 'traditional approach' to premises liability and ruling that the plaintiff could not establish that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the condition.
- The plaintiff appealed the Superior Court's decision.
- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts granted the plaintiff's application for direct appellate review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Should Massachusetts adopt the 'mode of operation' approach to premises liability, thereby modifying the traditional requirement that a slip-and-fall plaintiff must prove the store owner had actual or constructive notice of the specific dangerous condition that caused their injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Ireland, J.
Yes, Massachusetts should adopt the 'mode of operation' approach to premises liability because it better accommodates modern merchandising techniques and the inherent risks of self-service stores. The court found that the traditional approach, which requires a plaintiff to prove the store owner had actual or constructive notice of the specific dangerous condition, places an unfair burden on the injured party and often relies on conjecture. In contrast, the mode of operation approach recognizes that self-service operations, where customers handle merchandise, inherently create foreseeable risks of spillage and breakage. While this approach does not eliminate the plaintiff's burden to prove notice, it allows notice to be satisfied if the injury resulted from a reasonably foreseeable dangerous condition directly related to the owner's self-service mode of operation. The plaintiff must still prove the store owner failed to take reasonable measures commensurate with these foreseeable risks to prevent injury. This aligns with the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343, which suggests store owners have a greater duty to ensure customer safety than householders for visitors. The court emphasized that this adoption does not impose strict liability, nor does it make store owners insurers against all accidents, but rather shifts the burden from proving specific notice to proving the foreseeability of the risk and the unreasonableness of the owner's preventative actions.
Analysis:
This case represents a significant shift in Massachusetts premises liability law, moving away from a strict 'actual or constructive notice' standard for slip-and-fall cases in self-service environments. By adopting the 'mode of operation' approach, the Supreme Judicial Court acknowledges the realities of modern retail and the inherent risks created by self-service displays. This change will likely make it easier for plaintiffs to pursue claims against grocery stores and similar businesses, as they no longer need to prove how long a specific hazard was present. It also places a greater emphasis on proactive risk management and preventative measures by store owners, requiring them to anticipate and mitigate foreseeable dangers associated with their chosen business model.
