mode of operation

Plaintiff Jessica Nunez was shopping at the Clifton Costco and claimed that she slipped and fell on at least one blueberry on the floor in the meat department.  She sued Costco for her personal injuries.  The issue in Nunez v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196212 (D.N.J. Oct. 3, 2025) was whether Costco could be held liable under the mode of operation doctrine due to the sale of its blueberries packed in a clamshell container with pinch points at each corner, but not taped shut.

As a result of her fall, plaintiff suffered a fracture of her left patella, which required emergency surgery.  She claims that her surgery left her with substantial medical bills, lost time from work and changes in her employment. 

It was undisputed that Costco sold the blueberries packaged in a clamshell container with pinch points at each corner and that it sold them exclusively in the produce department, which was about 200 feet from the meat department where plaintiff fell.  The containers were not always taped, depending on the vendor, and sometimes the plastic containers did pop open.

The evidence showed that Costco employees performed daily floor walks to inspect for hazardous conditions, covering all areas at the store.  Plaintiff admitted that she could not recall ever encountering any spilled produce on the floor of this Costco prior to the date of the incident.  Further, the testimony was that while Costco employees did permit customers to open sealed produce containers while shopping, it did not encourage customers to eat while shopping.

It was unclear how long the blueberry (or blueberries) had been on the floor before the incident occurred.  There was no surveillance footage or eyewitnesses as to the accident.

The case was originally filed in New Jersey state court but it was removed to federal court. Thus, the litigation ensued in the Federal District Court of New Jersey.

Costco filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff was not able to establish a negligence claim under New Jersey law.  The two issues addressed by the Court were whether the mode of operation doctrine applied and, if not, whether Costco had actual or constructive notice of the alleged dangerous condition, i.e. the blueberry on the ground, that caused plaintiff’s injuries.

To establish a negligence claim, the plaintiff must show that there was a duty of care owed by the defendant and that the defendant breached that duty of care.  Costco, as a business owner, owed its invitee (its customer) a duty of reasonable care to provide a safe environment to its invitee.  However, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant/business owner had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition that caused the accident.

The District Court pointed out that in “very limited” circumstances, where the mode of operation rule applied, a plaintiff does not need to show actual or constructive notice to prove that a defendant/business owner breached its duty of care.  Once this rule is triggered, the burden switches to the business owner to establish that it “did all that a reasonably prudent man would do in the light of the risk of injury the operation entailed.”

The mode of operation rule only applies in self-service settings where “a business permits its customers to handle products and equipment, unsupervised by employees.”  There must be a nexus between the self-service components of the defendant’s business and the risk of injury in the area where the accident occurred.

Here, Costco conceded that it sold products in a self-service fashion and permitted customers to handle produce containers without employee supervision.  However, Costco argued that there was no nexus between the self-service component of its business and the risk of injury. 

Under New Jersey case law, “when a business owner instead uses a method that poses virtually no chance of spillage during ordinary, permissible customer handling,” the mode of operation rule does not apply.  The District Court cited to the New Jersey Supreme Court case of Jeter v. Sam’s Club, 250 N.J. 240 (2022), among other New Jersey state court decisions, in explaining and considering the application of the mode of operation rule to the facts of this case.

The Court noted that in Jeter, the New Jersey Supreme Court found “no reasonable factual nexus between the self-service activity and the dangerous condition causing plaintiff’s injury” when the business permitted only the self-service sale of pre-packaged sealed grape containers, rather than allowing customers to handle the produce in open top bags.  The Sam’s Club’s customers were intended only to handle the closed grape containers. The Jeter Court made clear that the presence or absence of tape on a closed container did not determine whether the mode of operation rule applied. 

The District Court also noted a prior District Court decision, also against Costco, Scalera v. Costco Wholesale Corp., in which the Court noted that “the taping of the containers was not the lynch pin of the Court’s analysis” in Jeter.  That case involved the sale of strawberries in a clam shell container which was not secured by tape.  As the Court in Scalera noted, “the analysis in Jeter hinged on whether the packing of the grapes in closed clamshell containers made it reasonably foreseeable that grapes would drop on the floor, and not on whether the containers were taped or might occasionally pop open.”

In considering the arguments made in Nunez, the District Court found that the mode of operation doctrine did not apply to the sale of the defendant’s blueberries in a clamshell container.  As in Jeter, the Court found that the defendant’s customers were not intended to handle the blueberries themselves or package the blueberries themselves.  Instead, they were intended only to handle the closed containers. 

Further, the Court found that plaintiff was unable to establish that Costco had actual or constructive notice of the blueberry on the floor.  It was undisputed that Costco had no actual knowledge.  The issue was whether the facts established that Costco could have had constructive knowledge of the blueberry being on the floor. 

To establish constructive notice of a hazardous condition, a plaintiff must be able to show that the condition was present “for such a length of time as reasonably to have resulted in knowledge and correction had the defendant been reasonably diligent.”  The length of time that the condition was present is key to determining whether constructive notice existed. 

A plaintiff is unable to prove constructive notice “when he or she cannot identify any facts in the record indicating how long the dangerous condition itself is present.”  The District Court noted that a court will look for evidence such as video footage, eyewitness testimony and whether the plaintiff his or herself noticed the hazard or had knowledge of when it was created.

Here, plaintiff had not pointed to any evidence from which a determination could be made as to how long the blueberry had been on the floor before the plaintiff’s fall.  Plaintiff did not know how long the blueberry had been on the floor prior to the incident.  Further, she was unable to identify any evidence regarding “characteristics of the berry that would indicate how long it had been there.”  Further, there was no surveillance footage, nor did any party claim that any eyewitnesses were present.  The Court found that “no one involved has any idea at all how long the hazardous condition existed before the incident occurred.”

Further, the Court pointed out that Costco did perform floor walks to check the floor for hazards hourly.   A Costco employee had performed an entire walk through of the store which had concluded only about 15 minutes before the incident occurred.

Thus, the District Court found that plaintiff had been unable to point to any evidence at all showing how long the hazard existed, but there was evidence that showed that Costco employees did closely monitor the area.  Hence, the Court found that plaintiff was unable to establish constructive notice.  Because of the absence of evidence of actual or constructive notice, that was fatal to plaintiff’s claim of premises liability.  Hence, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, dismissing the case.

Plaintiff, Samira Aly, was a customer at defendant A&H Bagels.  While walking to throw out her trash, she fell and suffered a serious injury.  Both deposition and video surveillance footage showed a brown substance on the floor near where she fell.  The issue in Aly v. A&H Bagels & Deli, Inc., 2023 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 695 (App. Div. May 8, 2023) was whether the trial judge made a mistake in refusing to charge the “mode of operation” standard in considering the summary judgment motion filed by the defendant A&H. 

Unfortunately, both the incident report and a log of inspections to the premises was lost in a subsequent fire.  However, Aly’s fall on the brown substance was documented through A&H Bagels’ surveillance footage but the footage was taken into police custody after the fire and never viewed by Aly.

At the trial court level, the defendant A&H filed a motion for a summary judgment dismissal, which was granted.  Plaintiff Aly appealed, arguing that the trial court failed to apply the appropriate “mode of operation” standard and, even absent the applicability of the mode of operation standard, the plaintiff argued that A&H Bagels should have had constructive notice of the brown substance on the floor near the trash receptacle.

While in a typical premises liability case, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant had notice of the alleged dangerous condition that caused the accident, when the mode of operation rule applies, it creates an inference of negligence and the burden shifts to the defendant to negate the inference by submitting evidence of due care.  When this doctrine applies, it relieves the plaintiff of proving that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition.  Instead, it requires a defendant to show that it did “all that a reasonably prudent man would do in light of the risk of injury the mode of operation entailed.”

The Appellate Division disagreed with the trial court’s failure to apply the mode of operation standard and found that it should have been applied.  The Court noted that “[l]ike the businesses previously found to have created the hazard by their self-service nature, A&H Bagel’s format requires courts to contemplate its duty through a mode of operation standard as well.”  Further, the Appellate Division found that the trial court failed to adhere to the summary judgment standard of giving all reasonable inferences to the plaintiff when it granted A&H Bagel’s motion.

The Court noted that the customers at the bagel shop purchased sandwiches, coffee in cups, and juices in closed containers at the counter and then carry their food and beverages to their seats to eat before disposing of their trash in the receptacle.  The customers wait on themselves after being served at a counter.  The Appellate Division noted that “this is exactly the situation where the burden should shift to the defendant to show that they acted reasonably considering this specific business format.”  Further, the Court held that “[t]he dangerous condition caused by the brown substance near the trash receptacle was a foreseeable risk posed by the bagel shop’s mode of operation.”  Hence, the Appeals Court found that the mode of operation rule did apply to this scenario.

The Appellate Division further reversed the trial court’s ruling that, even if the mode of operation rule did apply to this setting, A&H Bagels had met its burden because “they did all that a reasonably prudent shop would do considering the risk of injury the mode of operation entailed.”  The Appellate Division found that the trial court improperly concluded that A&H Bagels took all reasonable actions.  The Court found that there were genuine issues of material fact that only a jury could decide.  It was disputed exactly how much of the brown substance was on the floor, whether the brown substance caused the fall and also how soon before the fall were their inspections and garbage changes.  It should have been up to the jury to decipher whether defendant acted reasonably no matter whose burden it becomes to prove that.

Therefore, the Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s summary judgment dismissal.  It found that the mode of operation standard should have been applied.  Further, assuming it is applied, the jury must decide whether the defendant acted reasonably based upon its “mode of operation” to protect its invitees from the alleged dangerous condition, i.e., the brown substance on the floor.