Plaintiff Gabriela Mirtha Tiscornia Sosa was injured when she slipped and fell on a wet floor at a concert at the Prudential Center. This venue was owned by defendant DAE, which contracted with defendant ABM to provide janitorial services. The issue in Sosa v. Devils Arena Entertainment, LLC, 2025 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 787 (App. Div. May 15, 2025) was whether the defendants could be liable for the injuries plaintiff suffered from her fall in the translucent puddle on the upper concourse.
Plaintiff and her daughter had upper-level seats but about 10 minutes into the show, a Prudential Center employee offered to move them to seats closer to the stage. They agreed and went down the steps to the concourse level and entered the concourse. Plaintiff slipped and fell as she looked for an elevator to take down from the upper level. She claims she saw a translucent puddle while she was lying on the ground. Plaintiff claimed that both DAE and ABM were negligent because they allowed a “dangerous condition” to exist, which caused her injury.
At the trial court level, the court granted summary judgment dismissing the case. This appeal ensued.
The claim against DAE was that it caused the injury by moving her seat and permitting the service of drinks and open containers. Plaintiff argued that it was foreseeable that beverages would spill onto the floor and plaintiff did not have to show that DAE had notice. Plaintiff claimed that the mode-of-operation doctrine applied because of the manner of the beverage service and an inference could be drawn that a drink caused the spill leading to her fall. Plaintiff also claimed that ABM had constructive notice and was, therefore, liable because it was aware of DAE’s practice of allowing open drink containers.
The trial court judge found that the mode-of-operation doctrine did not apply because there was no information in the record establishing what the liquid that plaintiff fell on was, where the liquid came from, where it was created, or how long the liquid was present on the floor. The Appellate Division agreed with the trial court’s decision that the mode-of-operation rule would not apply under these circumstances.
Further, the unrebutted evidence showed that DAE had contracted to keep the arena clean and that the ABM representatives’ testimony explained how ABM went about doing so. Plaintiff failed to establish a nexus between DAE’s mode-of-operation, “mainly, serving drinks in open containers, having a janitorial services company patrol and monitor the area of floors,” and the liquid on the floor.
The Appellate Division further commented that there was no evidence to support the necessary elements of actual or constructive notice to hold either DAE or ABM liable. Plaintiff did not know what she slipped on or what the liquid was on the floor. There had been no reports of spills or debris. Even if there was liquid on the floor, there was no evidence showing how long it was present or that it was caused by an open container beverage. Hence, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision, granting summary judgment and dismissing the complaint.
