Deborah Bates-Bridgmon v. Heong's Market, Inc. d/b/a Roch's Market
152 A.3d 1137
| R.I. | 2017Background
- On March 23, 2009, Deborah Bates‑Bridgmon slipped on oil, cucumber, and debris near a self‑serve salad bar at Roch’s Market and later sued for negligence; her husband sued for loss of consortium.
- Plaintiffs amended their complaint shortly before trial to add a "mode of operation" theory, alleging the self‑service salad bar made spills foreseeable and shifted burdens to the store.
- At trial plaintiffs emphasized lack of employee monitoring, no warning signs or mats, and an absence of incident reporting; defendant disputed actual or constructive notice of the spill and denied policies created liability.
- The jury found for the defendant; plaintiffs moved for a new trial/additur under Rule 59 and requested jury instructions on mode of operation and other matters; the trial justice denied the motion.
- On appeal plaintiffs argued the trial justice erred by (1) denying the new‑trial motion and (2) failing to instruct on mode of operation and asked the Supreme Court to adopt that doctrine for self‑service premises liability claims.
- The Supreme Court affirmed: it upheld the trial justice’s deferential new‑trial review and found plaintiffs waived the jury‑instruction objection; it declined to exercise supervisory power to adopt the mode‑of‑operation rule in this case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial justice erred denying a new trial | The verdict was against the weight of evidence on negligence, notice, and causation; trial justice mischaracterized testimony | Evidence was insufficient to prove actual or constructive notice or proximate causation | Affirmed; trial justice properly acted as super‑juror, did not overlook material evidence, and reasonable minds could differ |
| Whether the trial court should have instructed on "mode of operation" theory | Mode of operation applies to self‑service stores and shifts burden to owner; plaintiffs had preserved the request | Mode of operation is not established Rhode Island law and no instruction was properly requested | Instruction issue waived under Rule 51 for lack of specific request/objection; Court declined to adopt doctrine sua sponte |
| Whether the Supreme Court should adopt mode‑of‑operation rule statewide | Plaintiffs urged adoption to govern self‑service retail slip‑and‑fall claims | Adoption would be a new rule affecting many cases and requires broader input; not warranted here | Court refused to exercise supervisory power to adopt the rule in these circumstances |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in jury instructions generally | Plaintiffs contend omission prejudiced their case | Trial justice tailored general duty instruction to account for salad bar and declined to give unused requested instructions | No reversible error; review de novo of instructions showed no prejudicial misinformation |
Key Cases Cited
- Free & Clear Co. v. Narragansett Bay Commission, 131 A.3d 1102 (R.I. 2016) (deferential standard for affirming jury verdict after trial justice’s new‑trial review)
- Yi Gu v. Rhode Island Public Transit Authority, 38 A.3d 1093 (R.I. 2012) (standard for when trial justice must disturb a jury verdict)
- Ferris Avenue Realty, LLC v. Huhtamaki, Inc., 110 A.3d 267 (R.I. 2015) (jury‑instruction review is de novo and must be read as a whole)
- Botelho v. Caster's, Inc., 970 A.2d 541 (R.I. 2009) (raise‑or‑waive rule for objections to jury instructions)
- Sheehan v. Roche Brothers Supermarkets, Inc., 863 N.E.2d 1276 (Mass. 2007) (describing the mode‑of‑operation theory in self‑service retail premises liability)