We examine the scope of mode-of-operation liability, concluding the trial judge erred its application. While on her way to the restroom, plaintiff slipped on the tile floor of defendants' fast-food restaurant on a substance she described as "water" or "grease." The trial judge applied the doctrine finding defendants' operated a fast-food operation and had not followed certain safety policies. We reversed finding no link between the manner in which the business was conducted and the alleged hazard plaintiff slipped on or its source. We concluded mode-of-operation liability results when a plaintiff suffers injury because the mode or manner of the business operation creates the dangerous condition on the premises. This concept does not lead to broad application. Although mode-of-operation liability is a type of dangerous condition, not all dangerous conditions arising in the operation of a business satisfy the mode-of-operation theory of liability.
In his dissent, Judge Hoffman views the facts as sufficient to impose mode-of-operation liability and would affirm the verdict. 03/03/14