When can a customer recover for slip-and-fall injuries at a business? Jex v. JRA, Inc. Explained

In Jex v. JRA, Inc., the Utah Court of Appeals addressed when business owners face liability for customer slip-and-fall injuries, clarifying the distinction between temporary and permanent condition theories of negligence.

Background and Facts

On a snowy January morning, Donna Jex entered Hickory Kist Deli as the first customer of the day. The store owner had cleared snow from outside and placed mats near the entrance, but not throughout the store. When Jex walked toward the back to place an order, she slipped on a four-inch puddle of water on the hardwood floor and sustained injuries to her wrist and back. The source of the water was unclear—it could have come from the owner’s shoes, an employee’s shoes, a Pepsi salesman who had entered earlier, or Jex’s own boots.

Key Legal Issues

Jex sued under two negligence theories: (1) the temporary condition theory, arguing defendants either had notice of the dangerous puddle or created it themselves, and (2) the permanent condition theory, claiming the hardwood floor system was inherently dangerous when wet. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants on both theories.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. Regarding the temporary condition theory, the court affirmed that defendants lacked actual or constructive notice of the puddle, noting that constructive notice requires evidence the condition existed long enough that the owner should have discovered it. However, the court reversed on whether defendants created the condition themselves, finding a jury could reasonably infer from the evidence that the owner or employee caused the puddle. Under the permanent condition theory, the court affirmed summary judgment, distinguishing this case from Canfield v. Albertsons because defendants lacked notice of creating a potentially hazardous condition.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that when store employees create dangerous conditions, the notice requirement doesn’t apply under the temporary condition theory. However, establishing constructive notice requires concrete evidence about the condition’s duration, not mere speculation. For permanent condition claims, practitioners must show the business method created an inherently dangerous and foreseeable risk with the owner’s knowledge.