Westerman v. Ernst – 1/22/2025
The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two holds that, although the duty owed in premises-liability actions is generally a legal question for the court, the duty determination may require the factfinder to resolve underlying questions of fact.
A customer of a business in an outdoor shopping center fell and suffered injuries while walking through a landscaped gravel bed located between the shopping center’s sidewalk and parking lot. The customer brought a premises-liability case against the owners of the shopping center. The owners sought summary judgment, which the superior court granted, finding (1) the owners owed no duty to the customer to make their premises reasonably safe at the time she fell because her status changed from invitee to trespasser when she walked across the gravel bed, and (2) the condition associated with the customer’s injury was not unreasonably dangerous. The customer appealed.
The Arizona Court of Appeals vacated and remanded. First, the Court explained that, even though the question of duty generally is a legal one for the court to decide as a matter of law, determining whether a duty exists may first require the factfinder to resolve questions of fact. In this instance, resolution of a question of fact—whether the customer engaged in an unpermitted activity by crossing the gravel (and therefore became a trespasser)—was necessary before the duty question of law. Because the customer had created a dispute of material fact on the issue of whether walking through the gravel was an unpermitted activity, the Court held the matter inappropriate for resolution on summary judgment. The Court similarly found summary judgment inappropriate on the trial court’s second basis, noting the customer had created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the condition associated with the customer’s injury was unreasonably dangerous.
Judge Gard authored the opinion, in which Chief Judge Staring and Judge Eckerstrom concurred.
Posted by: BriAnne Illich Meeds