Utah Court of Appeals
Can concealed ice beneath visible snow create disputed facts in slip-and-fall cases? Candelaria v. CBRichard Ellis Explained
Summary
Candelaria slipped on ice concealed beneath snow near dumpsters at a commercial property managed by CBRE, sustaining physical injuries and subsequent emotional distress. The district court granted summary judgment to all defendants on negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In Candelaria v. CBRichard Ellis, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether concealed ice beneath visible snow can defeat summary judgment in premises liability cases involving the open and obvious danger rule.
Background and Facts: Candelaria operated a cafe at a commercial property managed by CBRE. After heavy snowfall, she slipped on ice concealed beneath accumulated snow while taking trash to dumpsters in the parking lot. The ice had not been visible to her, and she testified she had no prior experience with icy conditions in that area. CBRE, Park West Enterprises, and Concept Maintenance Specialties moved for summary judgment, arguing the winter conditions created an open and obvious danger.
Key Legal Issues: The court examined whether genuine issues of material fact existed regarding: (1) whether the concealed ice constituted an open and obvious danger under Utah premises liability law, and (2) whether Candelaria’s emotional distress following physical injuries supported a separate negligent infliction of emotional distress claim.
Court’s Analysis and Holding: The court reversed summary judgment on the negligence claim, finding that Candelaria’s sworn testimony created disputed facts about whether the ice was open and obvious. Her statements that the ice was unexpected, concealed beneath snow, and not visible established genuine disputes precluding summary judgment. However, the court affirmed summary judgment on the emotional distress claim, explaining that emotional harm stemming from physical injuries constitutes damages for the negligence claim rather than a separate tort.
Practice Implications: This decision reinforces that the open and obvious danger rule requires case-by-case analysis when hazards may be concealed. Practitioners should carefully distinguish between visible conditions (snow) and underlying dangers (ice) during discovery. For emotional distress claims, attorneys must establish that psychological harm caused physical injury, not the reverse.
Case Details
Case Name
Candelaria v. CBRichard Ellis
Citation
2014 UT App 1
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20120818-CA
Date Decided
January 3, 2014
Outcome
Affirmed in part and Reversed in part
Holding
A genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether ice concealed beneath snow was an open and obvious danger, precluding summary judgment on the negligence claim, but emotional distress resulting from physical injuries supports only damages for negligence, not a separate negligent infliction of emotional distress claim.
Standard of Review
Correctness for the district court’s legal conclusions and ultimate grant of summary judgment
Practice Tip
When defending slip-and-fall cases involving winter conditions, ensure discovery specifically addresses the plaintiff’s knowledge of both visible conditions (snow) and underlying hazards (ice) to properly establish the open and obvious danger defense.
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.