In a significant premises liability decision, Perez v. Circle K Convenience Stores, the Arizona Supreme Court overturned an entry of summary judgment in favor of Circle K and held that whether a condition was unreasonably dangerous is irrelevant to the issue of whether Circle K had a duty to provide a remedy or warning of the condition. This decision reversed the lower courts’ rulings and reaffirmed the state of premises liability law in Arizona.
The lawsuit was filed by Roxanne Perez after she tripped and fell over a case of bottled water placed on the floor at a Circle K store. The case of water was at the end of the aisle and Ms. Perez admitted that the case of water would have been clearly visible to her had she looked down. In the trial court, Circle K moved for summary judgment on the issue of duty, arguing that Circle K had no duty to remedy or warn against the condition because it was not unreasonably dangerous. The trial court and the Arizona Court of Appeals agreed, holding that there was no duty to provide a remedy or warning because the case of water was not an unreasonably dangerous condition. However, the Arizona Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing that duty is established based on the relationship between the parties.
In the unanimous Opinion, Chief Justice Timmer explained that the proper inquiry for determining whether a duty exists is whether a special relationship existed between the plaintiff and defendant. Certain factual issues may be considered when determining duty—such as the status of a visitor, the applicability of a statute to the circumstances, and whether the risk of harm arose within the scope of the special relationship. The Court clarified that whether a condition is unreasonably dangerous is only relevant to the issues of breach and causation and should not be considered when determining whether a duty exists. Thus, the Court held that because Ms. Perez was a business invitee, Circle K owed Ms. Perez a duty of care regardless of whether the condition was unreasonably dangerous or not.
Even though the Court reversed the summary judgment ruling on the issue of duty, it recognized that summary judgment may be appropriate on other grounds. For example, although breach and causation are typically questions of fact for the jury, they can sometimes be decided as a matter of law if no reasonable juror could find in favor of the plaintiff on these issues. However, it declined to analyze breach and causation in this case because Circle K’s motion for summary judgment was based solely on the issue of duty. Circle K could file another motion for summary judgment arguing that no reasonable juror could find that Circle K breached its duty of care because the case of water was not unreasonably dangerous as a matter of law. If that motion were granted by the trial court, the case would likely return to the Arizona Court of Appeals for further consideration. Until then, though, the Arizona Supreme Court has made it clear that a proprietor of a business is under an affirmative duty to make the premises reasonably safe for use by invitees, and that the issue of duty is based solely on the relationship between the parties, not the dangerousness of the condition.
Thomas Rubin & Kelley PC has been representing retailers, landlords, and other landowners in Arizona for over 40 years. If you have any questions regarding premises liability cases, please feel free to contact Michael Kelley or Brian Rubin at 602-274-8289 or mkelley@trkfirm.com and brubin@trkfirm.com.