Arizona Supreme Court holds that a customer does not have to show a hazardous condition to establish a store’s duty of care in a slip-and-fall case.

A customer sued a convenience store for negligence and premises liability after tripping over a water display case while shopping. She alleged that the store’s display was an unreasonably dangerous tripping hazard that the company failed to address or warn her about.

The superior court granted summary judgment for the store, ruling that the store did not owe the customer a duty of care because the water display was open and obvious. A divided court of appeals affirmed, and the customer appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court.

The primary issue on appeal whether the display’s condition triggered the store’s duty of care to the customer as a business invite.

The Arizona Supreme Court rejected the argument that a condition within the store must be dangerous for the store’s duty of care to arise. It explained that, under Arizona law, a business owner owes a general duty of care to keep its premises safe for customers as business invitees. This duty exists based on the invitee relationship alone, not the condition of the premises.

The Court clarified that whether a condition on the premises is dangerous or obvious is relevant to whether the store breached its duty, not the existence of the duty itself. The Court emphasized that this is a factual determination, properly made by a jury after the existence of a duty is established.

Accordingly, the Arizona Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals’ opinion, reversed the lower court’s entry of summary judgment, and remanded back to the superior court for further proceedings.

Chief Justice Timmer authored the opinion of the Court, in which Vice Chief Justice Lopez and Justices Bolick, Beene, Montgomery, King, and Pelander (retired) joined.

Posted by: Payslie M. Bowman