Does a landowner owe a duty to protect sidewalk users from negligent patrons? Smith v. Bank of Utah, Inc. Explained

In Smith v. Bank of Utah, Inc., the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether an abutting landowner owes a duty of care to protect public sidewalk users from the negligent conduct of the landowner’s patrons. The case provides important clarification on the scope of the special use exception to Utah’s general no-duty rule for abutting landowners.

Background and Facts
Cameron Smith was riding his bicycle north on a public sidewalk when he was struck by a vehicle exiting the Bank of Utah’s drive-through. The driver, a bank patron, failed to stop at the stop sign or slow down when crossing the sidewalk. Smith sued both the driver and the bank, settling with the driver but continuing his negligence claim against the bank. Smith argued the bank owed him a duty of care to ensure that patron use of the drive-through exit did not render the sidewalk unsafe.

Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether the bank’s special use of the public sidewalk as a drive-through exit created an affirmative duty to protect sidewalk users from patron negligence. Under Utah law, abutting landowners generally owe no duty to maintain public sidewalks, but courts recognize a narrow exception when landowners make “special use” of sidewalks.

Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment, distinguishing this case from traditional special use cases. The court noted that Utah’s special use exception applies only when the landowner creates or maintains a physical defect in the sidewalk itself. Here, the bank did not create any physical condition or hazard on the sidewalk—the injury resulted from a patron’s negligent driving, not a sidewalk defect. The court also found no special relationship between Smith and the bank that would impose an affirmative duty to protect against third-party negligence.

Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that Utah’s special use doctrine is limited to cases involving actual physical alterations or defects in public sidewalks. Practitioners should focus on whether defendants created dangerous physical conditions rather than whether third parties acted negligently while using the property. The ruling also emphasizes that affirmative duties to protect against third-party conduct arise only from special relationships, not mere property ownership adjacent to public ways.