context: P 19. Fortier makes it clear that, under Vermont law, a jury may find a self-service store liable in a slip-and-fall case based on the store's failure to take reasonable steps to address a foreseeable hazard -- even if the plaintiff is unable to demonstrate precisely how long the dangerous condition existed.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 221 A.2d 515, 515
citation_a.parenthetical: "it would be unjust to saddle the plaintiff with the burden of isolating the precise failure"
citation_a.sentence: See 128 Vt. 393-95, 264 A.2d at 799-800. This point is made explicit in Wollerman, 221 A.2d at 515 (“it would be unjust to saddle the plaintiff with the burden of isolating the precise failure”), the case we relied upon in Fortier, and in many decisions from other states.
citation_b.signal: cf.
citation_b.identifier: 664 A.2d 846, 848
citation_b.parenthetical: plaintiff need not prove that store had notice of specific condition giving rise to plaintiffs injury as long as plaintiff can establish that store was aware of recurrence of hazardous condition on premises
citation_b.sentence: See, e.g., Cobb, 661 P.2d at 76 (notwithstanding plaintiff’s inability to show defendant’s actual or constructive knowledge of hazardous condition caused by grapes on floor, jury could infer that store failed to take reasonable steps to address known hazard); Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 648 S.W.2d 292, 295 (Tex. 1983) (even in absence of evidence showing store’s actual or constructive knowledge of spilled substance, jury could find store liable based on evidence tending to show store’s failure to take reasonable steps to protect customers from known hazard posed by self-service grape display); cf. Ortega v. Kmart Corp., 36 P.3d 11, 13-14 (Cal. 2001) (evidence of store’s failure to inspect premises within reasonable period of time is sufficient to allow jury to infer that dangerous condition was present long enough for store to have opportunity to discover and remedy condition); Dumont v. Shaw’s Supermarkets, Inc., 664 A.2d 846, 848 (Me. 1995) (plaintiff need not prove that store had notice of specific condition giving rise to plaintiffs injury as long as plaintiff can establish that store was aware of recurrence of hazardous condition on premises). Of course, as we explain below, plaintiff retains the ultimate burden of proving that defendant was negligent in failing to respond adequately to a foreseeable hazard; however, that burden does not necessarily entail proving how long the hazardous condition existed.