Romeo v. Harrah's Atlantic City Propco, LLC
168 F. Supp. 3d 726
D.N.J.2016Background
- Charles Romeo slipped and fell on a liquid spill in a common concourse at Harrah’s Atlantic City casino on March 19, 2011; surveillance video shows the spill occurring about four minutes before his fall.
- Harrah’s EVS (cleaning) staff inspect public areas every 30–40 minutes; Harrah’s also has widespread beverage service (cocktail servers, vending, complimentary bottled water) and patrons commonly carry open drinks on the concourse.
- Plaintiff contends the casino’s mode of operation (permitting/dispensing drinks throughout the concourse) creates an inference of negligence such that actual or constructive notice need not be proved.
- Harrah’s argues it lacked actual or constructive notice of the spill and that the mode-of-operation rule (narrowly applied to self-service settings) does not extend to the concourse or to casinos.
- Video and testimony show a casino supervisor was in the area while the spill existed; the court found this, combined with surveillance, creates a triable issue on constructive notice.
- Procedural posture: Harrah’s moved for summary judgment; the court denied the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the mode-of-operation rule applies | Mode of operation at Harrah’s (self-service bottles, servers, vending, patrons carrying drinks) creates a predictable spill hazard, relieving Romeo of proving notice | Casino is not the self-service business contemplated by the rule; no nexus between alleged self-service and this specific spill | Court: Mode-of-operation rule does not apply because plaintiff cannot establish the necessary nexus to a self-service origin of this spill (per Prioleau) |
| Whether Harrah’s had actual notice of the spill | Video shows camera manipulation suggesting staff observed the area; employees are tasked with identifying hazards | No evidence Harrah’s knew of this specific spill | Held: No evidence of actual notice; plaintiff’s camera argument was too remote in time to prove actual notice |
| Whether Harrah’s had constructive notice of the spill | Supervisor’s presence in the area during the spill plus surveillance evidence supports an inference that Harrah’s should have discovered and remedied the hazard | The spill existed only ~4 minutes before the fall, too short to impose constructive notice given cleaning/inspection intervals | Held: Jury question exists — constructive notice is plausible when combining short duration with supervisor presence and surveillance; summary judgment denied |
| Whether summary judgment is appropriate | Deny summary judgment because material factual disputes remain on constructive notice and mode-of-operation nexus | Grant summary judgment for lack of notice or mode-of-operation applicability | Held: Summary judgment denied; factual disputes preclude disposition as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Prioleau v. Kentucky Fried Chicken, Inc., 223 N.J. 245, 122 A.3d 328 (N.J. 2015) (limits mode-of-operation rule to self-service settings and requires nexus between self-service and the accident)
- Nisivoccia v. Glass Gardens, Inc., 175 N.J. 559, 818 A.2d 314 (N.J. 2003) (explains mode-of-operation rule and shifts burden of production to defendant when rule applies)
- Bozza v. Vornado, Inc., 42 N.J. 355, 200 A.2d 777 (N.J. 1964) (early formulation of mode-of-operation inference of negligence)
- Stelluti v. Casapenn Enterprises, LLC, 203 N.J. 286, 1 A.3d 678 (N.J. 2010) (premises-owner duty to business invitees to maintain safe premises)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard and burdens)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (genuine issue of material fact standard for summary judgment)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (view facts in light most favorable to nonmoving party at summary judgment)