Aleice Jeter v. Sam’s Club (085880) (Union County & Statewide)
A-2-21
| N.J. | Mar 17, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Aleice Jeter slipped on one or more grapes in the main aisle of a Sam’s Club and sued for negligence after suffering serious injuries.
- Sam’s Club sold grapes in prepackaged, sealed plastic clamshell containers secured with tape; store employees testified customers sometimes opened containers in-store (viewed as tampering).
- One day before trial Sam’s Club filed a motion in limine to bar a “mode of operation” jury instruction; the trial judge held an N.J.R.E. 104(a) hearing, ruled the rule did not apply, and—without a timely summary-judgment motion—dismissed the case for lack of actual or constructive notice.
- The Appellate Division affirmed; the Supreme Court of New Jersey granted certification limited to whether the mode-of-operation rule applies to grapes sold in sealed clamshells.
- The Supreme Court held the mode-of-operation rule does not apply to grapes sold in closed, taped clamshell containers and affirmed; the Court also criticized the trial court’s conversion of an untimely in limine ruling into a dispositive determination.
- Justice Albin dissented, arguing the rule should apply because the store knew customers opened packages and thus the burden should have shifted to Sam’s Club to prove reasonable precautions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the "mode of operation" rule applies where grapes are sold in closed, taped clamshell containers | Jeter: store knew customers opened containers; customer mishandling is precisely what the rule guards against, so jury should decide and burden should shift to Sam’s Club | Sam’s Club: it sold sealed containers (not loose grapes); there is no reasonable nexus between its self-service packaging and loose grapes on the floor; rule shouldn’t extend to sealed-pack goods | The Court: rule does not apply to grapes sold in closed clamshells; no reasonably foreseeable risk of spillage from ordinary, permissible customer handling of sealed containers |
| Procedural propriety of dismissing case on eve of trial after in limine hearing | Jeter: (implicitly) dismissal deprived her of proper opportunity to present full record | Sam’s Club: sought to bar the instruction; proceeded by in limine | The Court: trial court erred to convert an untimely in limine into a summary-judgment-like dismissal without giving parties the Rule 4:46 opportunities; bench/bar cautioned against such procedure |
Key Cases Cited
- Prioleau v. Kentucky Fried Chicken, 223 N.J. 245 (2015) (clarifies mode-of-operation applies only in self-service contexts and creates burden-shifting presumption when nexus exists)
- Nisivoccia v. Glass Gardens, Inc., 175 N.J. 559 (2003) (applies mode-of-operation to grapes sold in open-top, vented bags where spillage was foreseeable)
- Wollerman v. Grand Union Stores, Inc., 47 N.J. 426 (1966) (mode-of-operation applied to open-bin produce; operator must take precautions when choosing that sales method)
- Bozza v. Vornado, Inc., 42 N.J. 355 (1964) (early articulation of burden-shifting in self-service cafeteria where customers carried unlidded items)
- Francois v. American Stores Co., 46 N.J. Super. 394 (App. Div. 1957) (App. Div. res ipsa/responsibility-on-operator reasoning cited in dissent as precedent for burden-shifting)