In Prioleau v. Kentucky Fried Chicken, decided by the Supreme Court of New Jersey on Sept. 29, the court dealt with the scope of the mode-of-operation doctrine, which “gives rise to a rebuttable inference that the defendant is negligent, and obviates the need for the plaintiff to prove actual or constructive notice” of something on the floor of the defendant’s premises, which caused the plaintiff to slip and fall.
In doing so, the court held that the doctrine does not apply to a fast-food restaurant where the plaintiff fell on something greasy and wet in front of the rest room. The plaintiff contended the facts justified an expansion of the mode-of-operation doctrine because employees allegedly tracked oil and grease from the kitchen to the area in front of the rest room, and because “oil and grease is an integral feature of defendants’ fast-food operation.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
