Utah Court of Appeals
Does the open and obvious danger rule protect landowners from all invitee injuries? Jensen v. Gardner Explained
Summary
Jensen sued Gardner for negligence after hitting her head on a balcony overhang while running to her car parked in a tenant-only parking lot at Gardner’s apartment complex during rain. The district court granted summary judgment for Gardner, finding the balcony was an open and obvious danger.
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals in Jensen v. Gardner reaffirmed the strength of the open and obvious danger rule in premises liability cases, demonstrating how landowners can avoid liability even when invitees suffer serious injuries on their property.
Background and Facts
Tasha Jensen visited Alan Gardner’s apartment complex to view a rental unit with Kathy Gardner. Jensen parked in a tenant-only parking lot marked with “No Trespassing” signs, despite having no permission to park there. After rain began during her visit, Jensen ran toward her car with her head down, watching her feet. She struck her head on a balcony overhang that extended approximately 3 feet 7 inches from the building and was about 5 feet 2 inches off the ground, framed with white lattice on three sides. The impact caused her to fall and break her leg.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether Gardner owed Jensen a duty of care under premises liability law, specifically whether the balcony constituted an open and obvious danger that relieved Gardner of liability under Restatement (Second) of Torts sections 343 and 343A.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court applied the three-part test from Restatement section 343, which requires that a landowner: (1) know or should discover a condition creating unreasonable risk, (2) expect invitees will not discover or protect against the danger, and (3) fail to exercise reasonable care. The court found Gardner had no prior notice of balcony-related injuries and could not reasonably anticipate Jensen’s presence in the tenant parking area. Critically, the court determined the balcony was an open and obvious danger due to its visible white lattice framing and prominent extension from the building.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that even when invitees may have their attention distracted, landowners are not automatically liable if they could not reasonably anticipate the invitee’s presence in a particular location. Defense counsel should emphasize both the obviousness of alleged hazards and the landowner’s lack of reason to expect plaintiff’s presence when seeking summary judgment in premises liability cases.
Case Details
Case Name
Jensen v. Gardner
Citation
2012 UT App 146
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20100924-CA
Date Decided
May 17, 2012
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A landowner owes no duty to an invitee injured by an open and obvious danger when the landowner could not reasonably anticipate that the invitee would be present in the location where the injury occurred.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law, including the grant of summary judgment
Practice Tip
When defending premises liability cases, thoroughly document that dangerous conditions are open and obvious, and establish that the landowner had no reason to anticipate the plaintiff’s presence in the location where injury occurred.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.