« Law - "Pediatricians Voice Anger Over Costs of Vaccines" | Main | Ind. Courts - Reports of Court of Appeals oral arguments at Valparaiso University [Updated] »

Saturday, March 24, 2007

Law - Connecticut adopts the "mode of operation" rule re tort liability

Lynne Tuohy of The Hart ford Courant reports today:

What began as a nasty lunchtime fall at a Stop & Shop salad bar has evolved into a dramatic change in liability law for Connecticut businesses that invite customers to help themselves.

The state Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision released Friday, adopted a far more plaintiff-friendly rule in negligence cases involving so-called self-service operations, whether they are big-box department stores or small cafes with salad bars.

Patrons injured on the premises of a business formerly had to show that the owner/operator was on notice that a particular hazard existed, and failed to remedy it. The new rule puts the onus on business operators to recognize that their "mode of operation" creates foreseeable hazards that they should take reasonable steps to address. * * *

Kelly lost her negligence case at the trial court level, after failing to persuade the judge to adopt the "mode of operation" rule in place of the rule that a proprietor have advance notice of a particular, hazardous condition. Under the old rule, Kelly would have to prove that the store knew there was lettuce on the floor and neglected to remove it within a reasonable time frame. * * *

With Friday's ruling, Connecticut joins at least 22 other states that have adopted the "mode of operation" rule. Justice Richard N. Palmer noted that self-service operations have the potential to create many new hazards caused not only by an oversight by the shop's employees, but by other customers as well.

"Because self-service businesses are likely to achieve savings by virtue of their method of operation, it is appropriate to hold them responsible for injuries to customers that are a foreseeable consequence of their use of that merchandising approach unless they take reasonable precautions to prevent such injuries," Palmer wrote.

Justice Peter Zarella, joined by Appellate Judge Ian McLachlan, who was brought into the case as appellate judges sometimes are, wrote separately to emphasize that any new rule of premise liability should not encompass all self-service operations, but only those that are improperly designed or operated.

"The focus of the analysis is not on how long the piece of lettuce was on the floor but on whether the design or operation of the salad bar created a foreseeable risk of harm," Zarella wrote.

This entry from How Appealing includes links to the majority and concurring opinions.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on March 24, 2007 05:16 PM
Posted to General Law Related