Background
Truck driver Ronny Moore stopped at a self-service fueling station owned by The Primadonna Company, LLC, which does business as Whiskey Pete’s Hotel & Casino. Moore slipped on liquid believed to be gasoline and was injured. After he reported the spill, an employee placed absorbent material on it. Evidence also showed that Primadonna maintained a log for gasoline spills of at least one gallon. Full Service Systems Corporation provided janitorial services at the property.
Moore sued Primadonna for negligence and later asserted claims against Full Service Systems. At summary judgment, the defendants argued that Moore could not prove they created the spill or had actual or constructive notice of it. Moore relied in part on the mode-of-operation theory, under which a plaintiff may satisfy premises-liability notice requirements by showing that the owner’s self-service business model foreseeably creates the dangerous condition. The district court entered judgment for both defendants. It reasoned that Moore offered no evidence that attendants traditionally dispensed fuel or that self-service fueling was a newer merchandising technique. The Court of Appeals reversed in part, and the Supreme Court granted review.
The Court’s Holding
The en banc Supreme Court affirmed the unchallenged judgment on Moore’s negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention claim, but vacated summary judgment on the premises-liability theory and remanded. Justice Cadish began with Nevada’s general negligence framework. Land possessors owe entrants reasonable care, and businesses must maintain reasonably safe premises. Whether an operator exercised reasonable care depends on the foreseeable likelihood and gravity of harm, along with the feasibility and availability of precautions.
When a business or its employee creates a hazardous substance, the operator may be liable without separate proof of notice. When a third party creates it, a plaintiff ordinarily must establish actual or constructive notice and show an unreasonable failure to respond. Prior Nevada cases had discussed the mode-of-operation approach without expressly adopting it. That doctrine focuses on whether a danger is reasonably foreseeable from a self-service method of doing business and can allow foreseeability to satisfy the notice requirement.
The Supreme Court now expressly declined to adopt mode of operation as a distinct premises-liability doctrine. Foreseeability already performs the necessary work under Nevada negligence law, regardless of whether a business uses a particular retail format. Constructive notice may be proved in two ways: evidence that the specific hazard existed long enough to charge the operator with knowledge, or evidence showing that this type of danger was generally and reasonably foreseeable. Even when notice is established through foreseeability, the plaintiff must also show that the business’s measures for addressing the risk were unreasonable.
The district court therefore asked the wrong historical questions. Moore did not have to establish that gas-station employees once dispensed fuel or that self-service pumps represented a newer merchandising method. The proper questions were whether a fuel spill was a reasonably foreseeable dangerous condition giving Primadonna or Full Service Systems constructive notice and, if so, whether each defendant responded reasonably to that risk. Because the district court did not conduct that analysis, summary judgment on the premises claim could not stand. The Supreme Court also withdrew the earlier Court of Appeals opinion.
Key Takeaways
- Nevada does not recognize mode of operation as a separate premises-liability doctrine.
- A plaintiff can establish constructive notice by showing that the particular hazard persisted long enough or that the relevant type of danger was generally reasonably foreseeable.
- Historical proof that employees once performed a service or that self-service is a newer merchandising technique is unnecessary.
- Foreseeability establishes notice, not automatic liability; the plaintiff must still show that the operator acted unreasonably in addressing the foreseeable risk.
Why It Matters
Moore changes how Nevada premises cases should be framed at discovery and summary judgment. Plaintiffs are no longer required to fit a claim into a specialized self-service-business exception. They can develop operational evidence showing recurring hazards of the same kind—such as spill logs, incident history, inspection practices, employee testimony, and the physical design of the operation—to establish general foreseeability. Defendants should pair evidence disputing foreseeability with proof of reasonable inspection, cleanup, warning, and prevention measures.
The ruling matters beyond fuel stations. Casinos, grocery stores, hotels, restaurants, and other high-traffic Nevada businesses often face hazards associated with how customers use the premises. The label attached to the business model is now less important than the evidence of predictable risk and proportionate precautions. The decision also keeps the notice inquiry from becoming strict liability: even a foreseeable spill does not establish breach if the operator took reasonable measures under the circumstances. On remand, Moore must prove both constructive notice under the clarified standard and an unreasonable response by the responsible defendant.