184 A.3d 649
R.I.2018Background
- On Aug. 22, 2012, Karen Dent slipped on a brownish oily substance in aisle 6 of a Price Rite supermarket and was injured; surveillance video (motion-triggered, not continuous or time‑stamped) captured the fall.
- Dent’s husband had Sunny Delight bottles in the cart; one bottle was observed to be leaking during shopping.
- Store testimony described palletized Sunny Delight deliveries in shrink‑wrapped boxes that employees cut open with box cutters; employees were not tasked with inspecting product defects before sale.
- A porter was seen on video mopping an adjacent aisle, but the footage does not establish when that mopping occurred relative to the fall.
- Dent sued alleging negligence (premises liability), breach of contract, mode‑of‑operation, failure to warn, and breach of implied warranties; the Superior Court granted summary judgment for Price Rite on negligence and dismissed the remaining counts.
- The Supreme Court vacated summary judgment on the negligence claim (finding genuine issues of material fact) and affirmed dismissal of the other counts (contract, mode‑of‑operation as distinct claim, failure to warn, and implied warranties).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment on negligence was proper | Dent argued there is disputed factual evidence (video, employee depositions, leaking bottle, porter mopping) creating an issue whether Price Rite had actual or constructive notice | Price Rite argued there was no evidence it knew or should have known of the spill for a sufficient time to remedy it (no constructive notice) | Vacated: genuine issues of material fact exist about notice and timing; negligence claim should proceed to factfinder |
| Whether breach‑of‑contract claim (as business invitee) states a separate cause | Dent argued entry as invitee plus payment for goods creates a contract obligating safe premises | Price Rite argued no contractual relationship based on premises maintenance exists distinct from premises liability | Affirmed dismissal: claim is a disguised premises‑liability/negligence claim, not a separate contract claim |
| Whether mode‑of‑operation is a standalone cause of action | Dent urged adoption of mode‑of‑operation as independent cause (citing Massachusetts law) | Price Rite argued mode‑of‑operation merely affects the notice proof in negligence and is not a separate cause | Affirmed dismissal: mode‑of‑operation is a theory altering notice proof, not a distinct cause of action |
| Whether breach of implied warranties / failure‑to‑warn survive | Dent asserted product defect and failure to warn by retailer; claimed warranty theories apply | Price Rite argued no sale to Dent occurred (no contract for sale), and failure‑to‑warn is essentially negligence based on notice | Affirmed dismissal: warranties require a sale; failure‑to‑warn duplicates negligence and was dismissed given no separate basis shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Sola v. Leighton, 45 A.3d 502 (R.I. 2012) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Berard v. HCP, Inc., 64 A.3d 1215 (R.I. 2013) (negligence complaints ordinarily not amenable to summary judgment)
- Habershaw v. Michaels Stores, Inc., 42 A.3d 1273 (R.I. 2012) (elements of negligence and premises‑liability notice rule)
- Cooley v. Kelly, 160 A.3d 300 (R.I. 2017) (landowner duty to exercise reasonable care for persons on premises)
- Bromaghim v. Furney, 808 A.2d 615 (R.I. 2002) (notice requirement for slip‑and‑fall)
- Barone v. Christmas Tree Shop, 767 A.2d 66 (R.I. 2001) (premises liability constructive‑notice analysis)
- Massart v. Toys R Us, Inc., 708 A.2d 187 (R.I. 1998) (temporal element of constructive notice discussed)
- Lariviere v. Dayton Safety Ladder Co., 525 A.2d 892 (R.I. 1987) (elements of breach of implied warranty)
- Sheehan v. Roche Bros. Supermarkets, Inc., 863 N.E.2d 1276 (Mass. 2007) (mode‑of‑operation alters proof of notice but does not create a new cause of action)