Jasko v. F.W. Woolworth Co Case Brief

Torts
Summary of Jasko v. F.W. Woolworth Co, S. Ct of Colorado, 1972

Relevant Facts: Pl was injured when she slipped on a piece of pizza that was on the floor near the counter in the Df store. The store sold pizza by the slice on wax paper and hoagie sandwiches. The customers regularly stood and ate.

Legal Issue(s): Whether notice of a dangerous condition causing the injury is necessary to support a negligence action in this case?

Court’s Holding: No

Procedure: Ct of App judgment is reversed for new trial.

Law or Rule(s): Exercise of ordinary care and prudence a person would observe under similar circumstance. Notice requirement is for dangers that are out of the ordinary.

Court Rationale: The dangerous condition was created by the store’s method of sale. The steps taken to constantly clean the store show the owner recognized the danger. Selling pizza on waxed paper, to customers standing, creates a reasonable probability that food will drop. Notice is not required under these situations. Where the store’s operation creates the danger continuously they are easily foreseeable, and notice is not required.

Plaintiff’s Argument: The df was aware of the dangerous conditions that they created and failedto exercise ordinary reasonable care.

Defendant’s Argument: Df constantly cleaned around the counter, and was unaware how the pizza rested onto the floor.

Facts:

• P was injured when she slipped on a piece of pizza that was on the terrazzo floor near the counter in D's store.
• P did not claim or show that the pizza was placed or dropped on the floor by D or its employees or that D knew of its presence.
• P argued that D's method of selling pizza (over the counter on wax paper) leads to such mishaps, and conventional notice requirements need not be met.

Procedural History:

• COA found for D.
• CO Supreme Court reversed, found for P.

Issues:

• When a method used by a store is inherently dangerous or creates dangerous conditions that the owner knows about, does a P still have to prove notice of the dangerous condition?

Holding/Rule:

• When the operating methods of a proprietor are such that dangerous conditions are continuous or easily foreseeable, the logical basis for the notice requirement dissolves. (Actual or constructive notice need not be proved in this situation)

Reasoning:

• The dangerous condition was created by D's method of sale. The steps taken to constantly clean the floor show that the store owner recognized the danger.
• There was a reasonable probability that food would be dropped on the floor.