514 P.3d 1209
Utah Ct. App.2022Background
- In August 2017 Twila Davis was shopping at Wal‑Mart; an employee stocking the clock aisle turned and collided with Davis, who had crouched about 12–18 inches from the employee, injuring Davis.
- Davis sued Wal‑Mart for negligence, alleging failure to design, control, supervise, and warn invitees about hazards created by its employee.
- Wal‑Mart moved for summary judgment arguing (1) it owed no duty to Davis under the Jeffs factors and (2) the open‑and‑obvious danger rule barred the claim.
- The district court granted summary judgment, concluding Wal‑Mart owed no duty because the collision was unforeseeable/low probability and public policy weighed against imposing liability.
- Davis appealed; the Court of Appeals reversed, holding Wal‑Mart owed a duty to its invitee and that the open‑and‑obvious defense raised factual issues precluding summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wal‑Mart owed a duty of care to Davis | Davis: As a business invitee she is owed a categorical duty of reasonable care by the land possessor | Wal‑Mart: Under Jeffs, no duty here—employee collision was unforeseeable, omission, low‑probability, public policy disfavors imposing duty | Court: Wal‑Mart owed a duty to invitees; district court misapplied Jeffs and erred in finding no duty |
| Whether the open and obvious danger rule bars Davis’s claim | Davis: Rule inapplicable because danger stems from Wal‑Mart’s activity (employee stocking) and factual disputes exist | Wal‑Mart: Danger was open/obvious because Davis saw the employee and could avoid the risk | Court: Rejected as basis for summary judgment; factual questions remain on whether any danger was open and obvious |
| Whether the district court properly applied Jeffs at duty stage | Davis: Duty should be determined categorically for invitees; Jeffs forbids case‑specific foreseeability focus at duty stage | Wal‑Mart: Jeffs supports weighing foreseeability and policy to deny duty | Court: District court improperly engaged in fact‑specific foreseeability analysis and underweighted the business‑invitee relationship |
| Whether prior slip‑and‑fall precedents (e.g., Schnuphase) require summary judgment | Davis: Prior cases recognize duty and typically resolve breach, not duty; Jeffs controls duty analysis | Wal‑Mart: Those cases support summary judgment in similar premises‑liability contexts | Court: Those cases do not negate the duty owed to invitees and largely concern breach; they don’t justify SJ on duty here |
Key Cases Cited
- B.R. ex rel. Jeffs v. West, 275 P.3d 228 (Utah 2012) (articulates multi‑factor framework for duty and requires categorical duty analysis)
- Dwiggins v. Morgan Jewelers, 811 P.2d 182 (Utah 1991) (recognizes landowner duty to exercise due care for business invitees)
- Hale v. Beckstead, 116 P.3d 263 (Utah 2005) (defines business invitee status and attendant duties)
- Downham v. Arbuckle, 502 P.3d 312 (Utah Ct. App. 2021) (explains two‑step open and obvious danger analysis and that both steps can present factual questions)
- Schnuphase v. Storehouse Markets, 918 P.2d 476 (Utah 1996) (slip‑and‑fall precedent addressing when summary judgment is appropriate based on negligence/breach analysis)
- Price v. Smith's Food & Drug Centers, Inc., 252 P.3d 365 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (distinguishes temporary vs. permanent conditions and method‑of‑operation claims in premises liability)