Sarah Banta v. Costco Wholesale Corporation; and Does I-V

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued findings of fact and conclusions of law after a bench trial in Sarah Banta’s negligence action against Costco Wholesale Corporation. The court held that Banta failed to prove that Costco caused the food debris or had actual or constructive notice of it before her slip-and-fall. Judgment was directed in Costco’s favor, and the case was ordered closed.

Holdings

1. Under Nevada premises-liability law, a business owner breaches its duty of care for a temporary hazardous condition if the owner or its agent caused the condition, or if the owner had actual or constructive notice of the condition and failed to remedy it.
2. Nevada's mode-of-operation approach does not eliminate the plaintiff's burden to prove notice; the plaintiff must show that the injury was attributable to a reasonably foreseeable dangerous condition related to the owner's self-service operation and that a recurrent risk existed.
3. Banta failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Costco had actual or constructive notice of the food debris before the accident.
4. Banta failed to establish breach of duty and therefore failed to establish liability on her single negligence claim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Banta proved that Costco breached its premises-liability duty by causing the food debris or having actual or constructive notice of it and failing to remedy it.
2. Whether Costco's self-service food-court mode of operation established constructive notice or otherwise showed that Costco's inspection practices fell below the reasonable standard of care.
3. Whether Banta established liability on her negligence claim by a preponderance of the evidence.

Disposition

other