Johnson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 423 P.3d 1005

Plaintiff Michael Johnson slipped on an unidentified liquid in the housewares aisle of Wal‑Mart Store No. 2508 and was injured; source and time-on-floor of the liquid are unknown and surveillance did not capture the event.
Wal‑Mart permits customers to carry liquids throughout the store (including outside‑brought or in‑store purchases) and has internal policies recognizing that spills cause many slip/trip/fall accidents and describing cleanup procedures.
No store records showed this particular spill or any prior spills/accidents in the specific aisle where Johnson fell.
Two Wal‑Mart employees were in the general vicinity at the time, and one regularly checks a nearby high‑traffic area for spills.
Johnson sued for negligence/premises liability (failure to warn and to keep premises safe); the district court granted Wal‑Mart summary judgment, and Johnson appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Wal‑Mart’s allowance of liquids and internal recognition of spills created a recurring/continuing dangerous condition under the "operating methods" theory	Wal‑Mart’s business practice of allowing liquids and its internal acknowledgement that spills cause falls made spills foreseeable everywhere, imposing a duty to warn/abate	General policies and awareness that spills can occur do not establish that spills were recurring or that Wal‑Mart knew of a store‑specific continuous danger	Court held evidence insufficient to prove an operating‑method recurring condition; summary judgment affirmed
Whether Wal‑Mart had actual or constructive notice of the specific spill (isolated‑incident theory)	Proximity of two employees and location near a checked high‑traffic area support constructive notice	No record of prior spills in that aisle, unknown time lapse, and no evidence employees knew or should have known about this spill	Court held plaintiff failed to show actual or constructive notice of this particular spill; summary judgment affirmed

Tommerup v. Albertson’s, Inc., 607 P.2d 1055 (Idaho 1980) (prototype of isolated‑condition slip case where no evidence indicated wrapper was more than an isolated incident)
McDonald v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 707 P.2d 416 (Idaho 1985) (denial of summary judgment where handing out ice cream to crowds created a factual question whether condition was recurring)
Smith’s Mgmt. Corp. v. All, 708 P.2d 884 (Idaho 1985) (operating methods can make a condition continuous or foreseeable; plaintiff need not prove notice of the specific defect if operating methods caused recurring danger)
Shea v. Kevic Corp., 328 P.3d 520 (Idaho 2014) (reiterates that invitee must show actual or constructive knowledge even when alleging a recurring condition caused by operating methods)
Carlyle v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 896 P.2d 750 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995) (mere presence of a slippery substance in a store is insufficient to impose liability without additional proof)