GARCIA v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION
2:22-cv-05925
| D.N.J. | Jun 30, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Severo Garcia was injured at a New Jersey Costco when a heavy jar of Knorr seasoning fell on him while he was retrieving another jar from a self-service display.
- Moments before, a Costco employee had helped another customer retrieve a jar from the same display.
- The display consisted of boxes stacked 4-5 high and wide on the second shelf, with each jar weighing about 7.9 pounds and nearly a foot tall.
- Garcia filed a negligence suit against Costco, alleging the store failed to maintain a safe premises.
- Costco moved for summary judgment, arguing lack of notice and that any dangerous condition was created by Garcia himself.
- The court addresses both actual/constructive notice and the possible applicability of the "mode of operation" doctrine under New Jersey law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Actual/constructive notice of hazard | Costco had notice through employee's recent handling | No actual or constructive notice of any dangerous condition | Fact issue for jury; summary judgment denied |
| Applicability of mode of operation | Rule applies to self-service displays; obviates notice need | Doctrine inapplicable here; not a self-service issue | Doctrine may apply; burden shifts to Costco |
| Breach of duty of care | Stacking created foreseeable risk; process not reasonably safe | Plaintiff caused own injury; open, obvious condition | Adequacy of care for jury to decide |
| Plaintiff's own conduct as bar | Not sole cause; falls under mode of operation risks | Plaintiff's act solely created any hazard | Plaintiff's conduct does not negate claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Nisivoccia v. Glass Gardens, Inc., 818 A.2d 314 (N.J. 2003) (defines duty of care for business invitees and mode-of-operation doctrine)
- Bozza v. Vornado, Inc., 200 A.2d 777 (N.J. 1964) (mode-of-operation shifts notice burden in certain self-service contexts)
- Weinberg v. Dinger, 524 A.2d 366 (N.J. 1987) (New Jersey negligence elements)
- Prioleau v. Kentucky Fried Chicken, Inc., 122 A.3d 328 (N.J. 2015) (clarifies limits of mode-of-operation doctrine application)