STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JAMES BAKER(10-01-0087, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-0419-15T4
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Sep 7, 2017Background
- On April 20, 2012, Ana Colon slipped and fell in a Toys "R" Us checkout area after briefly leaving the lane to get ice cream for her nephew.
- Assistant manager Yorel Simmons saw the fall, helped Colon up, cleaned the area, completed an incident report describing a small clear puddle and noting a prior guest had liquid in a bottle that spilled.
- Colon suspected she slipped on bubble solution (which Toys "R" Us sold) but admitted she did not see an open container or know how long the liquid had been on the floor.
- Simmons later described the nearby child as holding a juice pouch (not a store-sold bottle) and conceded he did not witness anyone spill liquid; his prior report referenced a bottle spilling.
- Colon sued for negligence alleging Toys "R" Us failed to discover/remove the hazard or warn customers; Toys "R" Us moved for summary judgment asserting lack of actual or constructive notice and argued the mode-of-operation rule did not apply.
- The Law Division granted summary judgment for Toys "R" Us; the Appellate Division affirmed, finding no nexus between the alleged spill and the store’s limited self-service operations and no proof of notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff may invoke mode-of-operation doctrine to infer notice | The store’s self-service ice cream, soda, and sale of bubble solution made spills likely, so inference of negligence applies | The checkout area only had limited self-service coolers, not a cafeteria-style operation; no evidence the area was prone to spills | Rejected — no sufficient nexus between the limited self-service items and the spill; mode-of-operation inapplicable |
| Whether defendant had notice (actual or constructive) of the specific spill | Simmons’s incident report ("previous guest had some liquid in a bottle that spilled") creates a triable issue about notice | Simmons did not observe a spill before the fall and never witnessed who spilled; report insufficient to show prior notice or reasonable opportunity to discover | Held for defendant — plaintiff failed to show actual or constructive notice prior to the accident |
| Whether plaintiff’s speculation about the spill’s source raises a genuine issue of material fact | Plaintiff’s belief (bubble solution) suffices to create factual dispute for jury | Speculation without seeing container or causation is insufficient to defeat summary judgment | Held for defendant — speculation without evidence is insufficient |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate under de novo review | N/A — plaintiff contends triable issues exist | N/A — defendant contends evidence is insufficient as a matter of law | Affirmed — de novo review supports summary judgment for defendant |
Key Cases Cited
- Bozza v. Vornado, Inc., 42 N.J. 355 (1964) (applied mode-of-operation rule where premises functioned as busy self-service cafeteria with frequent spills)
- Ryder v. Ocean County Mall, 340 N.J. Super. 504 (App. Div. 2001) (mode-of-operation applied where mall common areas were functionally equivalent to cafeteria with frequent spills)
- Nisivoccia v. Glass Gardens, Inc., 175 N.J. 559 (2003) (describing scope and rationale of the mode-of-operation doctrine)
- Prioleau v. Ky. Fried Chicken, Inc., 223 N.J. 245 (2015) (reaffirming principles and burdens under the mode-of-operation rule)