Before Justices Douglas, Hardesty and Parraguirre. Opinion by Justice Douglas.
In this appeal from a jury verdict in a tort action, the Court considered whether the “mode of operation” approach to premises liability, under which the plaintiff does not have to prove the defendant’s knowledge of a particular hazardous condition if the plaintiff can prove that the nature of the defendant’s business tends to create a substantial risk of the type of harm the plaintiff suffered, extends beyond the self-service context. In answering the question in the negative, the Court held that because the mode of operation approach is premised on the idea that business owners should be held responsible for the risks that their choice to have customers serve themselves creates, the mode of operation approach does not extend to “sit-down” restaurants. The Court found no reason to extend mode of operation liability to such sit-down restaurants absent a showing that their owners created an increased risk of a potentially hazardous condition by having their customers perform tasks that are traditionally carried out by employees. Additionally, the Court addressed issues regarding the general verdict rule and rulings on the admissibility of evidence of pre-existing conditions, alcohol consumption, and testimony to correct erroneous statements. Of particular importance, the Court held that the general verdict rule (which provides that if a jury renders a general verdict for one party, and no party requests interrogatories, an appellate court will presume that the jury found every issue in favor of the prevailing party) does not apply when there are multiple factual theories supporting a single legal theory of recovery. As a result, the appellant in this case was able to obtain reversal of the judgment on the jury verdict based on errors that affected only the mode of operation basis for the finding of negligence, despite evidence in the record from which a jury could have concluded that an employee of the restaurant was directly responsible for the spilled substance. Reversed and remanded. (Anthony L. Carano, Associate in the Reno office of McDonald Carano Wilson LLP.)
