The Law

Beer Spill Slip by Sara Palmer On April 13th, 2019, at the TD Garden in Boston Massachusetts, Alexander Raheb slipped and fell after purchasing a hotdog and beer (without a lid) at a concession stand while heading to his seat with his friend, Fahim Manzur. Raheb sued Delaware North, claiming negligence under the special mode‑of‑operation notice theory. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted summary judgment in favor of Delaware North, concluding that the mode‑of‑operation notice could not be applied under the circumstances that were presented. The special mode‑of‑operation notice theory states that a plaintiff can recover damages for injuries sustained by a hazard that is on a property. The plaintiff does not need to prove that the property owner had any notice of the specific hazard if the company's normal operations created a foreseeable risk of injury due to how the business is conducted. Some further details about the incident are: neither Raheb nor Manzur noted any spilled liquid on the floor before the slip and fall. The liquid was only noticed after the fall by Manzur, who could not determine the source of said liquid. There is video evidence that the liquid that Raheb alleges he slipped on was spilled several seconds before by another patron. Delaware North concedes that there is no proof that the concession stands at TD Garden offer lids for drinks. Delaware North did have a contract with UG2. There were 8 workers assigned to each floor. The court used the case of Sarkisian vs Concept Restaurants to help determine its ruling. The ruling in the Sarkisian case was that the company was liable and the operations of the company caused the plaintiff to slip and fall. The patrons had to cross the dance floor to get from the bar to the lounge, which would create unsafe conditions due to spilled drinks and low visibility. The district court determined that the plaintiff does not get to the jury by showing that “an establishment sells drinks to patrons who are then allowed to travel about the premises”. Raheb could not show any evidence beyond this, however, he argued that he had evidence that the mode of operation forced thousands of patrons to walk purposefully through crowded corridors, many of whom were carrying open cups of beer. However, as part of his testimony, Raheb admitted that, while the establishment was crowded, he was able to easily navigate around the other patrons while walking to his seat. In conclusion, the previous ruling was affirmed and no cost was given. (Raheb v. Delaware North Companies, Inc. - Boston (US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Docket: 24-1230)) Decision: October 2024 Published: November 2024 Aided by: ChatGBT Feature Articles If you have an opinion on the retailing or retail real estate industries, take this opportunity to share your thoughts. Articles should run between 400 and 800 words. Topics can, be general in nature, consumer observation or specific to retail concepts or practices. Articles will be posted for at least one week and will then be placed in the Editorial Archives. All articles submitted will be read and considered but we cannot guarantee publication. Each published article will carry the submitters byline (if desired) and is a free service to our community. Article ideas and suggestions are also always welcomed. Contact PVS@PlainVanillaShell.com