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.
