509 P.3d 776
Utah Ct. App.2022Background
- Peggy Zazzetti, a disabled tenant at Prestige Senior Living, slipped on an icy sidewalk outside the apartment complex in January 2017 and injured her knee.
- Her lease contained a clause requiring tenants to keep snow off stairs and walks (the "Snow Removal Provision").
- Zazzetti sued Prestige for negligence, breach of implied warranty of habitability, and breach of contract; Prestige impleaded Action Snow Plow, and Zazzetti amended to add Action as a defendant.
- The trial court granted summary judgment dismissing Action; a three-day jury trial proceeded against Prestige and returned a defense verdict finding Prestige not at fault.
- The court instructed the jury on both the landlord's general duty of reasonable care and the Restatement-based open-and-obvious danger rule; it denied a pretrial motion to bar reference to the Snow Removal Provision but instructed on Prestige's nondelegable duty.
- On appeal Zazzetti challenged (1) the two instructions as irreconcilable, (2) denial of exclusion of the Snow Removal Provision, and (3) the summary-judgment dismissal of Action; the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether giving an "open-and-obvious" instruction (Restatement §§343/343A) along with a general landlord-duty instruction created an irreconcilable conflict | Zazzetti: The open-and-obvious rule should not apply in the residential landlord-tenant context and conflicts with the landlord's duty of reasonable care | Prestige: The Restatement rule defines the possessor's duty and applies to accidents in common areas open to invitees; both instructions can be reconciled | Court: No error — the instructions are compatible; §§343/343A apply to common-area invitee accidents and the jury must decide foreseeability/anticipated-harm questions |
| Whether the court erred by refusing to exclude evidence of the Snow Removal Provision as unconscionable or irrelevant | Zazzetti: Provision is unconscionable, contrary to public policy, and should be excluded | Prestige: Provision admissible; Prestige disavowed any intent to rely on it to shift its nondelegable duty to tenants | Court: Any prejudice was not attributable to the court because Zazzetti herself introduced the provision at trial; jury was instructed on the landlord's nondelegable duty and jurors are presumed to follow instructions; no reversible error |
| Whether the court erred in granting summary judgment dismissing Action Snow Plow | Zazzetti: Action assumed part of Prestige's duty and can be liable under negligent-performance doctrines (Restatement §324A) | Action/Prestige: The jury verdict for Prestige (no breach of duty) makes the question moot because Prestige's nondelegable duty means Action cannot be liable if Prestige is not | Court: Moot — the jury's defense verdict for Prestige rendered the challenge to Action's dismissal nonjusticiable |
Key Cases Cited
- Hale v. Beckstead, 116 P.3d 263 (Utah 2005) (adopted Restatement §§343 and 343A; modern open-and-obvious rule defines a land possessor's duty)
- Coburn v. Whitaker Constr. Co., 445 P.3d 446 (Utah 2019) (restating that where the open-and-obvious rule applies, the possessor owes no duty)
- Downham v. Arbuckle, 502 P.3d 312 (Utah Ct. App. 2021) (explains two-step open-and-obvious analysis: discoverability and anticipated harm)
- Jensen v. Gardner, 279 P.3d 844 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) (applied open-and-obvious rule to an accident in an apartment complex common area)
- Candelaria v. CB Richard Ellis, 319 P.3d 708 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (applied §§343/343A to a tenant's fall in a commercial building parking lot/common area)
- Alder v. Bayer Corp., 61 P.3d 1068 (Utah 2002) (adopted Restatement §324A principles on negligent performance of another's duty)
- Carlie v. Morgan, 922 P.2d 1 (Utah 1996) (establishes implied warranty of habitability as a contract-based claim)