Annette Troupe v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse
129 A.3d 1111
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2016Background
- On April 22, 2011 Annette Troupe slipped on a single berry in an aisle of Burlington Coat Factory's "Baby Depot," suffering knee and back injuries.
- No eyewitnesses; investigation found a purplish smear and a seed but no other fruit or persons eating nearby.
- Store cleaning: outside service cleaned every morning before opening; otherwise employees picked up items they saw but there was no periodic floor inspection schedule.
- Troupe sued for negligence (premises liability) alleging Burlington had actual or constructive notice and that its inspection practices were inadequate.
- Burlington moved for summary judgment; trial court granted it, finding no actual or constructive notice and rejecting the mode-of-operation rule.
- Appellate court affirmed, applying Prioleau and holding the mode-of-operation rule inapplicable because the berry was not tied to any self-service aspect of Burlington’s business.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Burlington had actual or constructive notice of the berry on the floor | Troupe: inadequate inspection regimen made slip foreseeable and Burlington should have discovered spilled food | Burlington: no evidence employees knew or should have known the berry was present before the fall | Held: No actual or constructive notice shown; summary judgment for Burlington affirmed |
| Whether the mode-of-operation rule applies | Troupe: rule should apply because lack of periodic inspections in a children’s department made food-on-floor foreseeable | Burlington: rule limited to self-service contexts where the business operation causes the hazard | Held: Mode-of-operation rule limited to self-service nexus per Prioleau; no nexus here, so rule does not apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Prioleau v. Kentucky Fried Chicken, Inc., 223 N.J. 245 (2015) (limits mode-of-operation rule to dangers connected to self-service operations)
- Nisivoccia v. Glass Garden, Inc., 175 N.J. 559 (2003) (business owners owe invitees duty to inspect and maintain safe premises)
- Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 (1995) (summary judgment standard reviewed de novo)
- Parmenter v. Jarvis Drug Stores, Inc., 48 N.J. Super. 507 (App. Div. 1957) (constructive notice defined by condition existing long enough that reasonable diligence would discover it)
- Arroyo v. Durling Realty, 433 N.J. Super. 238 (App. Div. 2013) (rejecting attenuated mode-of-operation theory where nexus between display and hazard was weak)