This is now my third article published in the New Jersey Law Journal on the topic of New Jersey's "mode of operation" rule, which is one of the more plaintiff-friendly legal doctrines in the arena of premises liability slip/fall cases involving retail establishments that allow customers to engage in self-service handling and purchasing of goods and merchandise. On March 17, 2022, the New Jersey Supreme Court rendered a somewhat contentious 4-2 decision in Jeter v. Sam's Club, ___ N.J. ___ (2022), in the ongoing struggle to define the parameters of this controversial legal doctrine.

As explained in my prior two articles ("Store Owners Face Difficult Defense: Getting Slip and Fall Dismissed at Summary Judgment is Nearly Impossible," Sept. 17, 2007, and  "Applying Mode-of-Operation Cases at Retail Stores," Dec. 29, 2014), ordinarily a plaintiff who alleges they suffered an injury as a result of slipping/falling due to a hazardous condition at a commercial retail establishment, must, in addition to proving the hazardous condition existed, prove that the defendant property owner created the condition, or prove that the owner had either actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition that allegedly resulted in injury. Indeed, the requirement that a plaintiff prove actual or constructive notice has been the law in New Jersey for over a century. See Schnatterer v. Bamberger, 81 N.J.L. 558 (E. & A. 1911); Coyne v. Mutual Grocery Co., 116 N.J.L. 36 (E. & A. 1935); Oeschlaeger v. Hahne & Co., 2 N.J. 490 (1949).