Edwards v. Hy-Vee, 294 Neb. 237

Background

Plaintiff Susan L. Edwards slipped and fell on what appeared to be a piece of watermelon while leaving a Hy‑Vee grocery store and sued for negligence (premises liability).
A man was handing out watermelon samples about 6 feet from where Edwards fell; Edwards’ daughter removed a watermelon seed from Edwards’ shoe.
Edwards did not know how long the watermelon piece had been on the floor and offered no evidence that any Hy‑Vee employee observed the watermelon.
Hy‑Vee moved for summary judgment arguing it did not create the condition and lacked actual or constructive notice.
The district court granted summary judgment for Hy‑Vee; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, holding there was no genuine factual dispute that Hy‑Vee created the condition or had constructive knowledge.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hy‑Vee created the hazardous condition	Edwards: permitting in‑store sampling created foreseeable spills; store liable even if a customer dropped it	Hy‑Vee: no evidence employees caused or participated in dropping the watermelon; distance from sample stand suggests a customer dropped it	No — no evidence employees created the hazard; reasonable inference is a customer dropped it
Whether Hy‑Vee had constructive notice of the watermelon on the floor	Edwards: the sampler’s presence and his cane reasonably suggest he or employees should have known pieces were falling	Hy‑Vee: no evidence how long the piece was on the floor, no employee observed it; no visible/apparent condition existing long enough to be discovered	No — no evidence condition was visible/apparent for sufficient time to impose constructive notice
Whether to adopt the mode‑of‑operation rule (altering notice requirement)	Edwards: adopt mode‑of‑operation so proof of notice is unnecessary when operation foreseeably produces hazards	Hy‑Vee: preserve traditional notice‑based approach; mode‑of‑operation effectively creates strict liability	Court declined to adopt mode‑of‑operation rule, upholding traditional premises‑liability framework
Whether summary judgment was appropriate	Edwards: factual disputes exist, so case should go to jury	Hy‑Vee: absence of evidence on creation or notice entitles it to judgment as a matter of law	Affirmed — summary judgment proper because no genuine issue of material fact on creation or notice

Key Cases Cited

Chelberg v. Guitars & Cadillacs, 253 Neb. 830, 572 N.W.2d 356 (1998) (business employees’ active role in handling items can support inference the business created a slippery condition)
Derr v. Columbus Convention Ctr., 258 Neb. 537, 604 N.W.2d 414 (2000) (no evidence of employee involvement defeats inference business created or knew of the hazard)
Hodson v. Taylor, 290 Neb. 348, 860 N.W.2d 162 (2015) (elements of premises liability and summary judgment standard discussion)