Fall over grape in potato, fruit and vegetable department of supermarket

Arnhem Court of Appeal 12 May 2009

In this case, a woman fell in the potatoes, fruit and vegetables department (AGF department) on 6 July 2005, around 20:20, when she was visiting the Albert Heijn supermarket branch in Enschede as a customer together with her husband and son. There was at least one grape on the floor of this department at the time of her fall. As a result of the fall, the woman suffered a so-called distal fibula fracture to her right leg, for which she underwent surgery. The woman claimed that Albert Heijn should be ordered to pay compensation for her damages.

The court in Arnhem dismissed the claim. The woman appealed. The Court of Appeal of Arnhem held that a supermarket such as Albert Heijn could be expected to take greater care in keeping the floor of the AGF department clean and to supervise that cleaning more closely than could be expected of it with regard to the floor of most other departments. After all, the layout of the AGF department and the nature of the foodstuffs sold in this department mean that the floor of this department gets dirty relatively quickly with (remnants of) fruit or vegetables that have ended up on it, with a greater risk of slipping on that floor - compared to the floor of most other departments.

The following follows from the witnesses' statements regarding the maintenance of the floor of the AGF department. In mid-2005, the floor of this department was swept and mopped every morning before 8am and then swept at 10am, 1pm/13.30pm, 2pm and 9.30pm by employees of this department. The cleaning activities applicable to this department were ticked off on a work schedule posted on the outside of the cold store. If the floor got dirty in between, the dirt was cleaned up as soon as possible. Furthermore, each department had an HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points) list, which aimed to prevent food from becoming unhealthy and unsafe and included a proper cleaning plan. Even on a quiet evening, a staff member was always present in the department.

Management control of the aforementioned rules primarily involved visually inspecting the AGF department 6 to 20 times a day for contamination. Furthermore, daily checks were carried out on the basis of HACCP lists and by the assistant manager additionally on the basis of ticked-off work schedules. The management also addressed employees who did not comply with these rules, the first time with a reprimand and the second time with a written warning.

The court of appeal is of the opinion that this combination of measures and the monitoring of compliance with these measures must be considered sufficient to prevent a fall on the floor of the AGF department as a result of fruit or vegetables ending up on the floor within reasonable limits, so that it cannot be ruled that Albert Heijn has neglected the care expected of it. The court therefore upheld the court's decision.