What constitutes reasonable inspection for constructive notice in premises liability? Matheson v. Marbec Investments Explained

Background and Facts

In Matheson v. Marbec Investments, defendant purchased the Elmwood Apartments complex in May 2000. The property had been built fifteen years prior without structural changes. Herbert Trayner, a principal of defendant and licensed general contractor, performed multiple physical inspections, including testing stair stability. Defendant also hired an MAI appraiser who found no defects. Less than one year later, plaintiff was injured when an exterior stair collapsed while he was helping move furniture. Plaintiffs sued for medical expenses, lost wages, and loss of consortium.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed two primary issues: (1) whether defendant had constructive notice of the stair defect sufficient to create a jury question, and (2) whether the res ipsa loquitur doctrine applied to avoid the constructive notice requirement. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue of material fact regarding defendant’s knowledge of the defect.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals applied the two-part test from Goebel v. Salt Lake City S.R.R. Co.: (1) the defendant must have knowledge of the condition, either actual or constructive, and (2) sufficient time must elapse after such knowledge for reasonable remedial action. The court found defendant satisfied its duty of proper diligence through reasonable inspections by qualified personnel. Regarding the higher standard argument based on Trayner’s contractor experience, the court applied Mitchell v. Christensen, holding that the proper standard is whether defects would be apparent to “ordinary prudent persons with like experience,” not persons with specialized knowledge. The court rejected plaintiffs’ expert affidavit that contradicted prior deposition testimony under the Webster v. Sill rule. Finally, the court determined res ipsa loquitur was inapplicable because the allegedly negligent act was clearly established by undisputed facts.

Practice Implications

This decision emphasizes that property owners can satisfy their duty regarding constructive notice through reasonable inspections by qualified personnel. The ruling clarifies that specialized knowledge of principals does not automatically impose higher inspection duties. Practitioners should note the court’s application of the Webster rule prohibiting contradictory affidavits without explanation, and that res ipsa loquitur does not apply when the specific negligent act is established by undisputed facts.