Untitled Document

For those of you who work with business owners or commercial landlords, it may help you to know something about premises liability. The concept applies to the stereotypical slip and fall type case. In technical terms, it is known as “negligent failure to maintain business in reasonably safe condition.”

A good illustration of this concept involves the case of Arment v. K Marat Corporation, 79 Wn. App. 694 (1995).

In November of 1989, Mrs. Arment went shopping at a Seattle K-Mart store. She later slipped on some clear soda lying on the floor between two clothing racks. Next to the soda was a K-Mart cup. The cup and soda presumably came from the store’s in-house restaurant. Mrs. Arment sued K-Mart for negligence.

First, the Court of Appeals stated what the appropriate rules were. To prove a claim of negligent failure to maintain business premises in a reasonably safe condition, the claimant must prove the following:

2. The proprietor had actual knowledge or constructive knowledge of the condition. Arment at page 696.

The Court recognized there is an exception to these requirements, called the “mode of operation” rule. In essence, it allows a claimant to prove their case a third way. If the Claimant can show the business’ operating procedures are unreasonably dangerous, and this dangerousness was continuous or foreseeable, the claimant can prove their case.

The Court then applied the facts of Mrs. Arment’s case to these rules. First, it found no evidence K-Mart or its employees caused the condition. Second, it found no evidence that K-Mart or its employees had actual or constructive knowledge of the condition. Finally, the Court found no evidence to suggest that K-Mart’s operation of a restaurant in the store created an unreasonably dangerous condition that K-Mart should have foreseen.

The Court did, however, discuss the kind of evidence it would take to prove the mode of operation rule. For example, the Court mentioned there was no evidence produced on store policies regarding customers taking drinks from the restaurant to retail sections of the store.

The Court also examined a different case involving a slip and fall at the Tacoma Mall. In that case the Court wanted to know:

The actual number of food/drink vendors at the Mall, as well as what other vendors sell;
The location of these vendors in relationship to the fall;
The vendors’ methods of operation and whether these caused debris or substances to fall on the floor;
Whether Mall patrons routinely brought items from outside into the Mall; and
The historical experience of slip and fall accidents in the area.

The Court looked at Mrs. Arment’s evidence to see if she had any evidence relating to these five questions. She had nothing. Consequently, the Court stated she had failed to prove her case and dismissed her claim.

If you are going to sell food and beverages, be careful where you allow or encourage your customers to go. If necessary review your policies and/or lease requirements; and
Double-check your operations to make sure they don’t create excessive debris, or cause slippery substances to routinely land on the floor.

This article contains information of general interest, and is not intended to be, nor should it be relied upon as a substitute for specific legal advice.