Gowe v. Intermountain Healthcare, Inc.
356 P.3d 683
Utah Ct. App.2015Background
- Aviva Gowe slipped and fell on a puddle of rainwater in the entryway of an Intermountain Healthcare (IHC) clinic and sued IHC for negligence.
- Gowe alleged the puddle was a temporary unsafe condition and that IHC had notice (actual or constructive) and an opportunity to remedy it.
- At summary judgment, IHC argued there was no evidence it knew of the puddle or that it had existed long enough for discovery.
- The district court granted summary judgment for IHC, finding Gowe failed to show actual or constructive notice or that IHC had time to remedy the condition.
- On appeal, Gowe challenged the summary judgment, arguing evidence supported inferences of both actual and constructive notice.
Issues
| Issue | Gowe's Argument | IHC's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Actual notice — did IHC or employees actually know of the puddle? | Gowe: facts permit inference IHC knew (wet-prone floor, employee duties, receptionist visibility, mat placement, puddle size/time). | IHC: no evidence any employee actually observed or knew of the puddle before the fall. | Not reached on merits — Gowe failed to preserve the broader actual-notice theory below, so appellate review denied. |
| Constructive notice — had the puddle existed long enough that IHC should have discovered it? | Gowe: puddle after rain in entryway supports inference of gradual accumulation and time on floor. | IHC: no evidence on how long puddle existed; no inspection logs or witness testimony showing appreciable time. | Held for IHC — insufficient evidence of appreciable time; constructive notice not shown. |
| Preservation of arguments — did Gowe preserve for appeal the actual-notice theory she now raises? | Gowe: raises the actual-notice theory on appeal based on puddle size, mat placement, etc. | IHC: Gowe’s district-court arguments focused on mat placement and method-of-operation; she did not present the actual-notice theory below. | Held for IHC — appellate court will not consider unpreserved arguments; Gowe’s broader actual-notice theory was not preserved. |
| Summary judgment entitlement — was IHC entitled to judgment as a matter of law? | Gowe: disputed fact issues exist about notice precluding summary judgment. | IHC: absence of evidence on notice/time entitles it to judgment. | Held for IHC — no genuine issue of material fact on notice; summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Francis v. State, 321 P.3d 1089 (Utah 2013) (summary-judgment standard and appellate review)
- Orvis v. Johnson, 177 P.3d 600 (Utah 2008) (view facts in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Jex v. JRA, Inc., 196 P.3d 576 (Utah 2008) (temporary-condition notice requires actual or constructive notice and time to remedy)
- Schnuphase v. Storehouse Mkts., 918 P.2d 476 (Utah 1996) (distinguishes permanent vs. temporary unsafe conditions and notice standards)
- Price v. Smith's Food & Drug Ctrs., Inc., 252 P.3d 365 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (mere presence of slippery spot insufficient; need evidence of notice/time)
- Preston v. Lamb, 436 P.2d 1021 (Utah 1968) (business owner’s duty to use reasonable care to maintain safe floors)
- Padula v. Big V Supermarkets, Inc., 570 N.Y.S.2d 850 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991) (example where evidence of heavy traffic and wet carts supported inference of gradual accumulation)