Porto v. Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc.
145 A.3d 283
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Plaintiff Katerina Porto slipped on a puddle she believed was dog urine at a Petco store and injured her ankle; she had no evidence the store had actual or constructive notice of that specific puddle.
- Petco permits customers to bring leashed animals into stores, maintains sanitation stations, and expects occasional pet messes; employees patrol aisles and are to clean up when made aware.
- Store manager Timothy Smith completed an incident report (noting in narrative that it was dog urine) and indicated the plaintiff’s description was credible; manager testified pet messes and related reports were infrequent.
- Plaintiff sued for negligence alleging Petco failed to prevent, warn of, or clean up the urine; at trial she relied on the mode of operation doctrine to excuse proving notice.
- Trial court ruled the mode of operation rule did not apply because the hazardous condition was brought into the store from outside and, alternatively, Petco took reasonable precautions; judgment for defendant affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the mode of operation rule applies to a pet‑friendly store that allows leashed animals | Porto: Petco’s "pet‑friendly" mode of operation made pet messes an inherently foreseeable, regularly occurring hazard, so notice is unnecessary | Petco: Allowing leashed pets is ordinary for pet stores and does not create a distinct, regularly occurring hazard; plaintiff must prove notice | Mode of operation rule does not apply; allowing leashed pets is not a distinct mode giving rise to constructive notice |
| Whether there is an identifiable zone of risk for pet messes | Porto: Leashed animals are "moving" risks; zone of risk should be where pet messes occur | Petco: A moving‑target zone would make the entire store a zone of risk and defeat the rule’s limits | No identifiable limited zone of risk; adopting moving‑target theory would render entire store a zone of risk |
| Whether pet messes were inherently foreseeable or regularly occurring under Petco’s operation | Porto: Policy of admitting pets makes pet messes foreseeable | Petco: Evidence showed only infrequent pet messes (approx. 1–2 reports/week; only one slip in manager’s six years) | Possibility of pet messes insufficient; not shown to be regularly occurring or inherently foreseeable |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelly v. Stop & Shop, Inc., 281 Conn. 768 (Conn. 2007) (establishes narrow mode of operation exception to notice requirement where a business’s specific operation foreseeably creates regular hazardous conditions)
- Baptiste v. Better Val‑U Supermarket, Inc., 262 Conn. 135 (Conn. 2002) (premises‑liability principles requiring actual or constructive notice of the specific unsafe condition)
- Fisher v. Big Y Foods, Inc., 298 Conn. 414 (Conn. 2010) (emphasizes narrow scope of the mode of operation rule and that it applies only to specific operational methods distinct from ordinary business conduct)
- Konesky v. Post Road Entertainment, 144 Conn. App. 128 (Conn. App. 2013) (clarifies requirement of an identifiable zone of risk and rejects expanding the rule to make entire premises a zone of risk)