Presented by the Casualty Department

Special Law Alert–Victory for the Defense: Appellate Court Affirms that Mode of Operation Does Not Apply

In Troupe v. Burlington Coat Factory, A-1687-14T4, 2016 N.J.Super. LEXIS 17 (App. Div. Jan. 26, 2016), the plaintiff slipped on a berry and fell in an aisle near the children section within Burlington Coat Factory. Upon the defendant's motion for summary judgment, the motion judge found that the defendant did not breach a duty of care as there was no actual or constructive notice by Burlington of the berry prior to the plaintiff's fall. The motion judge also rejected the argument that the mode of operation rule applied. (This rule relieves a plaintiff of the burden of proving actual or constructive notice and gives rise to an inference of negligence as against the defendant. The defendant may avoid liability only by showing that it did all that a reasonable person would do in light of the risk of injury the operation entailed.)

On appeal, the Appellate Division agreed with the motion judge as to the lack of actual or constructive notice as to the berry on the floor. The Appellate Division then addressed the plaintiff's contention that the motion judge erred in not applying the mode of operation rule.  Ultimately, the Appellate Division did not agree with the plaintiff and affirmed the dismissal to the defendant.  According to the panel, the plaintiff was attempting to expand the mode of operation rule beyond the narrow circumstances to which it has been held to apply. The Appellate Division noted that mode of operation application does not arise merely due to the inappropriateness of a store's cleaning schedule. The panel turned to the recent New Jersey Supreme Court decision of Prioleau v. Kentucky Fried Chicken, 223 N.J. 245 (2015) and found that the fall at Burlington did not involve any self-service component of the defendant's business. More so, there was no demonstrative nexus between the self-service component of the defendant's business (selling clothes and other non-food items) and the risk of a customer slipping on a berry in an aisle.  By relying upon Prioleau, the Appellate Division held that the plaintiff's failure to show a clear nexus between the self-service component of the business and a risk of injury in the area where the accident occurred precluded application of the mode of operation rule.         

 

 

 

The material in this law alert has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. It is solely intended to provide information on recent legal developments, and is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We welcome the opportunity to provide such legal assistance as you require on this and other subjects. To be removed from our list of subscribers who receive these complimentary Law Alerts, please contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com. If however you continue to receive the alerts in error, please send a note to  tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1           
 © 2016 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. All Rights Reserved.