Jensen v. Gardner
2012 UT App 146
| Utah Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Jensen sued Alan and Kathy Gardner for negligence after an injury on the Gardner apartment property.
- District court granted summary judgment in favor of Alan Gardner; claims against Kathy Gardner were dismissed with prejudice by stipulation.
- Jensen parked in a tenant-designated lot; signs read 'Tenant Parking Only' and 'No Trespassing' in the private driveway to the lot.
- Jensen hit a balcony overhang while running to her car in the rain; balcony extended ~3'7" from the building, about 5'2" off the ground, with lattice sides.
- Gardners did not know Jensen had parked in the tenant lot and had no knowledge of anyone hitting the balcony before.
- The court applied the open and obvious danger rule to assess duty; it found no material facts showing Gardner should have anticipated harm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to invitee for open and obvious danger | Jensen argues Gardners owed duty despite obvious danger. | Gardner contends no duty because danger was open and obvious and not reasonably anticipated. | No duty under open and obvious danger rule. |
| Anticipation of harm despite obviousness | Harm could be anticipated despite open danger. | Harm was not reasonably anticipated; Jensen ran by balcony with head down. | No duty; harm not reasonably anticipated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hale v. Beckstead, 116 P.3d 263 (2005 UT 24) (open and obvious danger rule; duty of care framework)
- Johnson v. Gold's Gym, 206 P.3d 302 (2009 UT App 76) (review of legal issues on summary judgment)
- Lyman v. Solomon, 258 P.3d 647 (2011 UT App 204) (negligence generally not amenable to summary disposition)
- Schnuphase v. Storehouse Mkts., 918 P.2d 476 (Utah 1996) (legal duty and open and obvious dangers context)