Utah Supreme Court
What duty does a property management company owe to injured residents? Hill v. Superior Prop. Mgmt. Servs. Explained
Summary
A condominium resident tripped on tree root offshoots concealed in grass and sued the property management company claiming negligence. The district court granted summary judgment for the company, finding no duty of care existed.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In Hill v. Superior Property Management Services, the Utah Supreme Court addressed when property management companies owe duties of care to injured residents. The case provides important guidance on premises liability and contractual duties in the property management context.
Background and Facts
Colleen Hill lived in the Waterbury Condominiums and tripped on tree root offshoots concealed in the grassy common area. She sued Superior Property Management Services, which performed maintenance activities under contract with the homeowners association. Superior’s contract required weekly mowing and bi-weekly edging during the growing season, plus trimming small branches when necessary. However, the HOA retained responsibility for major repairs and tree trimming.
Key Legal Issues
The court examined whether Superior owed Hill a duty under four theories: (1) contractual duty, (2) premises liability as a possessor, (3) voluntary undertaking, and (4) affirmative conduct creating the hazard. Each theory required different elements and presented distinct challenges for establishing liability.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court found no duty under any theory. For contractual duty, Superior had not breached its contract since the accident occurred before the growing season commenced. For premises liability, Superior lacked sufficient control over the property—it could not exclude others or make major repairs. The voluntary undertaking theory failed because Superior’s mowing activities did not establish a duty to perform comprehensive tree maintenance. Finally, the affirmative conduct theory was not preserved because Hill failed to specifically argue how Superior’s acts created the hazard.
Practice Implications
This decision establishes that property management companies performing limited maintenance duties are not automatically subject to possessor liability. The key factor is control—defendants must have the right to exclude others and make necessary repairs. Practitioners should carefully analyze the scope of contractual obligations and preserve all theories of liability with specific factual support in their arguments, not just statements of facts.
Case Details
Case Name
Hill v. Superior Prop. Mgmt. Servs.
Citation
2013 UT 60
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20120428
Date Decided
October 11, 2013
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A property management company that performed limited maintenance activities under contract owed no duty of care to an injured condominium resident because it lacked sufficient control to be deemed a possessor, did not breach its contractual obligations, and failed to preserve claims regarding affirmative creation of harm.
Standard of Review
Correctness for summary judgment decisions
Practice Tip
When asserting affirmative conduct theories on summary judgment, specifically identify the defendant’s acts that created harm in the argument section, not just the statement of facts.
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.