Conn. Civ. Jury Instr. 3.9-17

The plaintiff has alleged that (his/her) injuries were caused by the mode by which the defendant

operated the business, in particular, by the way the defendant designed, constructed or

maintained <identify the mode of operation, e.g., the self-service arrangement>.

This is called the mode of operation rule. Under this rule, the plaintiff need not show that the

defendant had notice of the particular item or defect that caused the injury. Rather, the plaintiff

must prove:

1. that this mode of operation gave rise to a foreseeable risk of injury to

customers [or other invitees],

2. that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care to avoid foreseeable

accidents created by this mode of operation, and

3. that the plaintiff's injury was proximately caused by such failure.

[It is not the law that a defendant who runs a business guarantees the safety of those who come to

the premises. If a customer [or other invitee] is injured because of a negligent act that the

defendant cannot reasonably be expected to foresee or guard against, then the defendant is not

liable.]

1 This language can be used here if it has not been previously used in the general premises

liability part of the charge. Kelly v. Stop & Shop, Inc., 281 Conn. 768, 790 (2007).