Title: Malaney v. Hannaford Brothers Co.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Malaney v. Hannaford Brothers Co. (2002-316); 177 Vt. 123; 861 A.2d 1069

2004 VT 76

[Filed 20-Aug-2004]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                                 2004 VT 76

                                No. 2002-316

  Paulette Malaney	                         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.	                                 Chittenden Superior Court

  Hannaford Brothers Company	                 November Term, 2003	

  Mary Miles Teachout, J.

  Thomas C. Nuovo of Bauer, Anderson & Gravel, Burlington, for
    Plaintiff-Appellant.

  David Bond of Downs Rachlin Martin PLLC, Burlington for Defendant-Appellee.

  PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Dooley, Johnson, Skoglund and Reiber, JJ.

       ¶  1.  DOOLEY, J.   Plaintiff Paulette Malaney, who sued defendant
  Hannaford Brothers Company after she slipped and fell on a grape in the
  company's grocery store, appeals a jury verdict in favor of defendant.  She
  argues that she was entitled to a directed verdict on the issue of
  liability, and that the trial court's instructions to the jury were
  incomplete and erroneous in several respects.  We conclude that the trial
  court committed prejudicial error (1) by endorsing in front of the jury
  defendant's misleading statement of the law of premises liability during
  its closing argument, and (2) by giving the jury incomplete instructions on
  defendant's duty of care.  Accordingly, we reverse the jury verdict, and
  remand the matter for further proceedings.
   
       ¶  2.  The accident that led to plaintiff's suit occurred on
  February 13, 2000.  Plaintiff was in the check-out line with her fiancé
  when she remembered one last item that she wanted to purchase.  As she
  passed through the store's produce section to retrieve the item, she
  slipped on a grape and fell, dislocating her elbow.  In October 2000,
  plaintiff sued defendant, alleging that store employees were negligent in
  failing to keep the floor free of debris.  A two-day jury trial was held in
  May 2002, resulting in a verdict for defendant.  Plaintiff appeals the
  judgment resulting from that verdict.

       ¶  3.  Plaintiff first argues that she was entitled to judgment as a
  matter of law because defendant failed to present any evidence that it took
  reasonable steps to protect her from the foreseeable dangers associated
  with selling grapes from a self-service display counter.  We disagree.

       ¶  4.  The parties presented conflicting evidence concerning the
  extent to which defendant took reasonable measures to protect its customers
  from potentially hazardous conditions caused by the grape display. 
  Plaintiff elicited evidence indicating that defendant was generally aware
  of the hazards posed by grapes and had adopted specific procedures to
  address the hazard, including some that had not been followed.  For
  example, one of defendant's safety bulletins emphasized the importance of
  using large runners in many areas of the produce department, particularly
  in front of grapes displays.  Plaintiff presented evidence that no such
  runner was in place at the time she slipped near the grape display.
   
       ¶  5.  On the other hand, the store's sweep logs, which were
  introduced into evidence, indicated that someone had swept near the floral
  section, close to where plaintiff fell, approximately three hours before
  the accident.  The sweep logs also confirmed the testimony of a store
  employee that he had conducted spot mops of the produce section
  approximately one and one-half hours and again five minutes before the
  accident.  The employee testified, however, that although he visually
  checked the area around the grape display for debris, he was unable at all
  times to see the floor because of the large number of carts and people in
  the area.

       ¶  6.  Both plaintiff and defendant sought directed verdicts,
  plaintiff arguing that the evidence unequivocally demonstrated defendant's
  negligence in failing to protect her from a known hazardous condition, and
  defendant arguing that plaintiff's failure to show how long the grape she
  slipped on had been on the floor entitled the store to judgment as a matter
  of law.  The trial court denied both motions, ruling that plaintiff had
  presented sufficient evidence to create a jury question as to whether the
  steps taken by the store were reasonable given the hazard posed by the
  grape display, and that defendant had presented evidence from which the
  jury could have concluded that the store had taken reasonable steps to
  protect its customers.

       ¶  7.  In support of her view that she was entitled to a directed
  verdict on liability, plaintiff contends that Vermont law required
  defendant to be extra vigilant in protecting its customers from the obvious
  and known hazard posed by the grape display, particularly on the day she
  was injured, given that the store was crowded and grapes were on sale,
  resulting in customers handling hundreds of pounds of grapes.  In
  plaintiff's view, defendant failed to present evidence to demonstrate that
  the store exhibited the extra vigilance required under these circumstances. 
  Viewing the evidence cited above most favorably to defendant, however, we
  conclude that the trial court acted well within its discretion in leaving
  it for the jury to determine whether, considering all of the circumstances,
  defendant had taken reasonable steps to address the hazard posed by the
  grape display.  See Brueckner v. Norwich Univ., 169 Vt. 118, 122,