Legal Opinion

Porto v. Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc.

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided August 16, 2016No. AC37516PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGruendel, J.

*574 Traditionally, in a premises liability case, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the hazard that injured her. Baptiste v. Better Val-U Supermarket, Inc., 262 Conn. 135 , 140, 811 A.2d 687 (2002). Our Supreme Court adopted a narrow exception to that notice requirement in Kelly v. Stop & Shop, Inc., 281 Conn. 768 , 770, 918 A.2d 249 (2007), where in it held that a supermarket that operated a self-service salad bar was liable for *575 slips and falls suffered by patrons near the service area because the store's self-service mode of operation created an…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Kelly v. Stop & Shop, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2007
  2. Fisher v. Big Y Foods, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2010
  3. Baptiste v. Better Val-U Supermarket, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2002
  4. Konesky v. Post Road EntertainmentConnecticut Appellate Court · 2013
  5. Dupuy v. Petsmart, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2010

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Rockhill v. Danbury HospitalConnecticut Appellate Court · 2017
  2. Hill v. OSJ of Bloomfield, LLCConnecticut Appellate Court · 2020
  3. Vallas v. Walmart Inc.District Court, D. Connecticut · 2025
  4. Wang v. Omni Hotels Management CorporationDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2025

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API