Often times there are food and drink spills in the aisles of supermarkets. These spills cause dangerous conditions that can lead to patrons falling and injuring themselves.
A business owner has a duty to provide a safe environment for its invitees. Nisivoccia v. Glass Gardens, Inc., 175 N.J. 559, 563 (2003). This duty of care “requires a business owner to discover and eliminate dangerous conditions, to maintain the premises in safe condition, and to avoid creating conditions that would render the premises unsafe.” Id. A business is generally not liable for injuries caused by dangerous conditions of which they were not aware. Brown v. Racquet Club of Bricktown, 95 N.J. 280, 291 (1984). Thus, ordinarily the burden is upon the plaintiff to prove “that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition that caused the accident.” Nisivoccia, 175 N.J. at 563. Constructive knowledge will be found “if the condition had existed for such a length of time that [the business owner] should have known of its presence.” Bozza v. Vornado, Inc., 42 N.J. 355, 359 (1964)).
When the very nature of a business’s operation creates the hazard, however, the “mode-of-operation rule” creates an inference of negligence and “the burden shifts to the defendant to negate the inference by submitting evidence of due care.'” Nisivoccia 175 N.J. at 564 (quoting Bozza, 42 N.J. at 360). This inference relieves the plaintiff of proving that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition and instead requires the defendant to show it did “all that a reasonably prudent man would do in light of the risk of injury [the mode of operation] entailed.” Wollerman v. Grand Union Stores, Inc., 47 N.J. 426, 429. If the defendant provides no explanation, the facts presented by the plaintiff should allow a jury to find “from the condition of the premises and the nature of the business that [the defendant] did not exercise due care in operating the [business], and that said negligent operation was the proximate cause of [the plaintiff’s] injuries.” Bozza, supra, 42 N.J. at 359.
In the cases of Nisivoccia and Wollerman, the New Jersey Supreme Court found that self-service operations that made loose fresh produce available in bins for the customer’s selection made spillage (of a grape and a string bean respectively) inevitable.
Here at Ginarte, Gonzalez & Winograd, LLP, our accident lawyers focus on representing NJ and NY victims of someone else’s negligence and protecting their rights. Call our office at (888)-GINARTE or contact us online for a free consultation and we will make sure your rights are not lost.