Schaap v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that conducting a free cookie program for children at a grocery story was not inherently dangerous even though the defendant conceded that it could be expected that children will drop cookies on the floor
• holding that where one judge authors an affir-mance, another judge concurs in result only, and a third judge files a dissenting opinion, there is no majority opinion and the case does not stand as precedent for the individual views expressed in the three separate opinions
• stating that, even under a negligent-mode-of-operation theory, the plaintiff still has to prove that the condition of the floor was created “as a result of the negligent method of operation” (emphasis added)
• summary judgment in favor of store owner affirmed where no causal connection between cookie program and customer’s slip and fall
• store's cookie program was not \inherently dangerous\ or conducted in a negligent manner
• a defendant may be liable for negligence where the plaintiff proves either that the method of operation is inherently dangerous, or the particular operation is being conducted in a negligent manner resulting in the condition

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).