Raheb v. Delaware North Companies, Inc.

Plaintiff Alexander Raheb slipped and fell on a liquid spill at TD Garden, Boston, injuring his knee and incurring substantial medical expenses.
The alleged cause was a clear liquid (likely beer), spilled seconds before by another patron carrying open cups from a concession stand.
Raheb brought a negligence claim against Delaware North (TD Garden's operator), under the mode-of-operation theory, arguing Delaware North’s operations foreseeably created frequent spill hazards.
There was no evidence staff were near the spill, or that Delaware North had actual or constructive notice of it.
The district court granted summary judgment to Delaware North, concluding Massachusetts law’s mode-of-operation doctrine did not apply to these circumstances.
The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the mode-of-operation theory apply where a sporting arena allows patrons to carry open drinks through crowded concourses?	Delaware North’s operations create recurring spill risks; thus, they are on notice per mode-of-operation rule.	Mode-of-operation applies only to self-service situations or tightly analogous scenarios, not sports arenas.	No; mode-of-operation theory doesn’t reach carrying drinks at sports venues.
Was there evidence tying the regularity of spills to Delaware North's particular method of operation?	Crowded concourses and frequent spills show a foreseeable recurring hazard linked to operational choices.	TD Garden is no different from any venue allowing drinks in seats; risk isn’t uniquely tied to its operation.	No; facts did not show regularity of risk due to a "particular" operation.
Did the district court properly interpret and apply controlling Massachusetts precedent on mode-of-operation?	Argued for a broader reading; TD Garden facts fit expanding scope in recent cases.	SJC authority explicitly excludes sports venues merely selling drinks for in-seat consumption.	Yes; court correctly interpreted Mass. law’s limited scope.

Sheehan v. Roche Bros. Supermarkets, Inc., 863 N.E.2d 1276 (Mass. 2007) (adopted the mode-of-operation notice theory for self-service retail contexts)
Sarkisian v. Concept Restaurants, Inc., 32 N.E.3d 854 (Mass. 2015) (limited mode-of-operation theory outside self-service to rare, analogous scenarios; excluded general sporting venues)
Bowers v. P. Wile's, Inc., 54 N.E.3d 1089 (Mass. 2016) (applied mode-of-operation theory to self-service store with recurring, operation-linked hazard)