Porto v. Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc.
Connecticut Appellate Court
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
- Kelly v. Stop & Shop, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2007
- Fisher v. Big Y Foods, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2010
- Baptiste v. Better Val-U Supermarket, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2002
- Konesky v. Post Road EntertainmentConnecticut Appellate Court · 2013
- Dupuy v. Petsmart, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2010
3Cited by4 opinions
- Rockhill v. Danbury HospitalConnecticut Appellate Court · 2017
- Hill v. OSJ of Bloomfield, LLCConnecticut Appellate Court · 2020
- Vallas v. Walmart Inc.District Court, D. Connecticut · 2025
- Wang v. Omni Hotels Management CorporationDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2025