Lee Stafford v. Sandy Paydirt, LLC

Salt Lake City, Utah personal injury lawyer represented Plaintiff, who sued Defendant on a premises liability theory claiming to have been injured as a result of a dangerous condition on Defendant's property.





¶1 When Lee Stafford encountered a puddle on a hotel elevator's tile floor, he slipped, caught himself, and later sought compensation for a back injury that he believed resulted from the strain. However, after determining that the undisputed facts of the case revealed that the hotel (Hilton)[1] had not breached any duty to Stafford under Utah premises liability law, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Hilton. Stafford now appeals, and we affirm.





¶2 As Stafford stepped into the elevator on Hilton's fifth floor, his foot slipped out from under him. Stafford regained his balance, a feat that kept him from actually falling to the ground. Afterward, in the middle of the elevator's tile floor, he discovered a puddle of water that seemed to smell of chlorine and was only a "[c]ouple of inches across." After Stafford rode the elevator down to the lobby, he found a trail of water leading toward Hilton's pool-a pool separated from the elevator by about one hundred feet of carpeted hallway. Stafford reported the incident to Hilton's staff and his stay at Hilton soon ended. But the lower back pain resulting from the incident did not. Seeking relief from the pain, Stafford incurred substantial medical expenses and sought recovery from Hilton.





¶3 Discovery reflected that the tile installed by Hilton in the elevator was "nonslip" and that Hilton had no knowledge of any other person ever slipping on the hotel's tile generally, and specifically the tile in the elevator. Hilton's representative testified in a deposition about mats found at the hotel entryways and at the pool entry. That testimony included statements that the mat near the pool entry "would help with people walking in and out if they are wet, I guess," but that the mat had not been placed there for "[e]ssentially, slipping purposes." Rather, the mats' "specific purpose" was unknown other than that they were a corporate "require[ment]" and a "welcome touch point . . . as people are walking in."...



* * *





¶11 "To recover under a permanent unsafe condition theory, a plaintiff must show that an owner chose a mode of operation that foreseeably could result in an inherently dangerous condition." Jex II, 2008 UT 67, ¶ 11. This includes "cases where the storeowner's method of operation creates a situation where the reasonably foreseeable acts of third parties will create a dangerous condition." Price v. Smith's Food & Drug Centers, Inc., 2011 UT App 66, ¶ 9, 252 P.3d 365. "In such circumstances," as opposed to a situation in which a plaintiff is alleging a temporary unsafe condition, "where the defendant either created the condition, or is responsible for it, he is deemed to know of the condition; and no further proof of notice is necessary." Schnuphase v. Storehouse Markets, 918 P.2d 476, 478 (Utah 1996) (cleaned up). Rather, "foreseeability and inherent danger are key elements of a negligence action under [a permanent unsafe condition] theory of liability." Id. at 479.

Affirmed.