344 P.3d 1163
Utah Ct. App.2015Background
- On Dec. 31, 2007 Marcia Crossgrove slipped on ice in a parking lot adjacent to premises leased by her employer, S & S Worldwide, Inc.; she and her husband sued the landlord, Stan Checketts Properties, LLC (Checketts), for negligence and loss of consortium.
- S & S had executed a lease with Checketts on Jan. 1, 2007 granting S & S the right to use the adjacent parking spaces and obligating S & S to provide "maintenance and upkeep of parking and landscape areas" adjacent to the premises.
- The district court concluded S & S had possession of the parking lot and therefore Checketts owed no duty to Crossgrove for conditions arising after transfer of possession; summary judgment was entered for Checketts.
- Crossgroves argued Checketts retained control/possession of the lot, that recurring winter ice made the condition "permanent," and that factual disputes precluded summary judgment.
- The appellate court held the Crossgroves failed to adequately brief or support their arguments that (1) Checketts retained possession, (2) seasonal ice was a preexisting permanent condition, or (3) disputed facts were material to possession; it affirmed summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who possessed the parking lot and thus owed a duty to maintain it? | Crossgroves: Checketts retained control/possession despite lease language granting use to S & S. | Checketts: Lease gave S & S right to use and duty to maintain; S & S possessed the lot. | Court: S & S possessed the lot; Crossgroves failed to show error or adequately brief contrary claim. |
| Whether seasonal accumulation of ice is a permanent dangerous condition existing before lease transfer | Crossgroves: Recurrent winter ice made the condition preexisting, so landlord still liable. | Checketts: Seasonal ice is transient; tenant liable for conditions arising after possession. | Court: Seasonal ice is not a permanent condition; Dahlstrom controls—tenant responsibility. |
| Whether factual disputes about Checketts’ control precluded summary judgment | Crossgroves: Evidence shows Checketts exercised control and maintenance. | Checketts: Possession—not generalized "control"—is the material legal standard; no material fact on possession. | Court: Even if control facts existed, Control was not shown to be material to possession; summary judgment stands. |
| Whether plaintiff’s derivative loss-of-consortium claim survives if negligence claim fails | Mr. Crossgrove: Derivative claim should survive independently. | Checketts: Loss-of-consortium depends on underlying negligence. | Court: Derivative claim fails because Mrs. Crossgrove’s negligence claim fails; summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stephenson v. Warner, 581 P.2d 567 (Utah 1978) (tenant liable for dangers that arise after tenant takes possession)
- Dahlstrom v. Nass, 126 P.3d 773 (Utah Ct. App. 2005) (seasonal snow/ice is transient, not a permanent dangerous condition)
- Hermansen v. Tasulis, 48 P.3d 235 (Utah 2002) (standard for reviewing summary judgment and drawing inferences for nonmoving party)
- Torrie v. Weber County, 309 P.3d 216 (Utah 2013) (elements of negligence and duty as question of law for court)
- Tallman v. City of Hurricane, 985 P.2d 892 (Utah 1999) (no duty = no negligence; summary judgment appropriate)