Court Reverses $292,000 Award for Nightclub Slip and Fall

Contact the personal injury attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. today. We can help you get the just compensation you deserve for your injuries or those of a loved one. For a free initial consultation, call 203-221-3100 or email JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

A verdict in favor of a patron in her negligence action arising from a slip and fall in a nightclub could not stand, as the mode of operation rule was improperly applied to the club's sale of beer from ice-filled tubs; that method of serving beer did not create an inherently foreseeable heightened risk more than other methods of serving beer.

The plaintiff sought to recover damages from the defendants for negligence in connection with personal injuries she had sustained when she slipped and fell in a nightclub. Thereafter, H Co., the owner of the nightclub, was substituted as the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that a step from the booth area where she was sitting to the dance floor was defective, that H Co. had caused the floor area where she had fallen to be slippery and hazardous, and that H Co.'s method of operating a portable bar on the floor and step area and selling beer from ice filled tubs was an inherently hazardous means of serving drinks.

The matter was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $292,000. From the judgment rendered thereon, the defendant appealed to this court. On appeal, the plaintiff alleged that because her single count complaint asserted two distinct legal theories of recovery—the first, relating to the allegedly defective step, based on traditional premises liability law, and the second, relating to the operation of the beer tubs, based in part on the mode of operation doctrine—and because interrogatories were not submitted to the jury, there was no way of discerning on which basis the jury found in her favor and, thus, the general verdict rule applied.

Although a nightclub patron alleged somewhat different specifications of negligent conduct by the premises owner, the specifications all sounded in premises liability and all sought to vindicate the same essential right, such that the general verdict rule was not applicable. The mode of operation rule did not only apply to self-service businesses or businesses that included self-service components. Application of that rule to conclude that the owner's sale of beer from ice-filled tubs created an inherently foreseeable heightened risk was improper because the method of serving beer was not appreciably different from the methods necessarily employed by all bars that served cold beverages.

At Maya Murphy, P.C., our personal injury attorneys are dedicated to achieving the best results for individuals and their family members and loved ones whose daily lives have been disrupted by injury, whether caused by a motor vehicle or pedestrian accident, a slip and fall, medical malpractice, a defective product, or otherwise. Our attorneys are not afraid to aggressively pursue and litigate cases and have extensive experience litigating personal injury matters in both state and federal courts, and always with regard to the unique circumstances of our client and the injury he or she has sustained. 

Please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq., at 203-221-3100, or at JMaya@mayalaw.com, to schedule a free consultation.

Source: Konesky v. Post Rd. Entm’t, 144 Conn. App. 128 (Conn. App. Jul 16, 2013)