437 P.3d 439
Utah Ct. App.2018Background
- On a January morning with below-freezing temps and light snow, Curtis Warrick crossed PRI’s private parking lot and slipped on clear ice, breaking his leg.
- Warrick described the hazard as "crystal clear" ice under a thin layer of snow; plaintiffs later asserted on appeal (but not below) the ice was one inch thick.
- The Warricks sued Property Reserve, Inc. (PRI) for negligence; after discovery PRI moved for summary judgment asserting no notice of the ice.
- The district court treated Warrick as an invitee for the motion, found no evidence of actual or constructive notice, and granted summary judgment to PRI.
- On appeal the Warricks argued (1) the notice requirement did not apply because the owner created the condition, and (2) evidence supported an inference the ice existed long enough for constructive notice; the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs were required to show actual or constructive notice of the ice | Warrick argued notice is not required where owner created the temporary dangerous condition (relying on Jex) | PRI argued plaintiffs must show actual or constructive notice to impose liability for a temporary condition | Not preserved: plaintiffs did not raise this theory below, so court did not reach it |
| Whether evidence supported constructive notice (existence long enough for owner to discover and remedy) | Evidence (clear ice under thin snow, nearby piled snow and salted sidewalks) permits reasonable inference ice existed long enough for constructive notice | Presence of ice and salt alone insufficient; no evidence on timing, source of melt, or property maintenance responsibilities | Affirmed: plaintiffs presented no competent evidence of how long ice existed; constructive notice not shown |
| Whether appellate assertion that ice was one inch thick could be considered on appeal | Plaintiffs asserted thickness on appeal | PRI opposed consideration of facts not presented below | Court refused to consider the one-inch claim because it was not in the summary judgment fact statements |
| Whether district court properly limited facts considered on summary judgment | Plaintiffs argued additional record facts and photos support their claims | PRI relied on Rule 56 procedures and the parties’ statement-of-facts framework | Court held Rule 56 confines the factual ‘‘constellation’’ to the parties’ numbered statements and admissible supporting materials; district court acted within discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Ohlson v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 568 P.2d 753 (Utah 1977) (evidence of disordered spill supported inference it existed long enough for store to act)
- IHC Health Servs., Inc. v. D & K Mgmt., Inc., 196 P.3d 588 (Utah 2008) (court will not grant every remote inference to nonmoving party on summary judgment)
- Jex v. JRA, Inc., 196 P.3d 576 (Utah 2008) (notice requirement may not apply to owner-created temporary hazards)
- Price v. Smith's Food & Drug Ctrs., Inc., 252 P.3d 365 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (mere presence of slippery spot does not establish negligence)
- State v. Cristobal, 238 P.3d 1096 (Utah Ct. App. 2010) (reasonable inference contrasted with speculation)