Utah Court of Appeals
When do landlords owe duties for dangerous conditions on leased property? Crossgrove v. Stan Checketts Properties, LLC Explained
Summary
Marcia Crossgrove slipped and fell on ice in a parking lot leased by her employer S&S from Stan Checketts Properties, LLC. The district court granted summary judgment for Checketts, finding it owed no duty because S&S was in possession of the parking lot when the accident occurred.
Analysis
Background and Facts
Marcia Crossgrove was injured when she slipped and fell on ice while retrieving mail in a parking lot adjacent to her employer’s building. S&S Worldwide leased the building and parking lot from Stan Checketts Properties, LLC under a lease that granted S&S “the right to use parking spaces in the adjacent parking lot” and required S&S to “provide maintenance and upkeep of parking and landscape areas.” The injury occurred nearly a year after the lease began, and the icy condition did not exist when S&S initially took possession.
Key Legal Issues
The primary issue was whether Checketts owed a duty of care to Mrs. Crossgrove when S&S was arguably in possession of the parking lot. The court also addressed whether seasonal ice accumulation constitutes a permanent dangerous condition and the adequacy of appellate briefing requirements.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment, applying the established rule that “it is the tenant who is liable for any dangerous condition on the premises which he creates or permits to come into existence after he has taken possession.” The court found that S&S was in possession of the parking lot based on the lease terms granting use rights and maintenance responsibilities. The court rejected arguments that seasonal ice problems constitute permanent dangerous conditions, following Dahlstrom v. Nass. Critically, the court dismissed the Crossgroves’ possession argument as inadequately briefed, noting they failed to provide legal analysis or authority supporting their distinction between “use rights” and actual possession.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that possession, not retained control, determines landlord liability for dangerous conditions that arise after lease commencement. Practitioners must carefully analyze lease language regarding possession and maintenance responsibilities. The court’s emphasis on adequate briefing requirements serves as a reminder that appellate arguments require thorough legal analysis with supporting authority, not merely factual assertions or bare citations to cases.
Case Details
Case Name
Crossgrove v. Stan Checketts Properties, LLC
Citation
2015 UT App 35
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20130814-CA
Date Decided
February 20, 2015
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A landlord owes no duty to an injured plaintiff when the tenant was in possession of the premises where the injury occurred and the dangerous condition did not exist when possession was transferred.
Standard of Review
Correctness for summary judgment
Practice Tip
When challenging possession determinations in landlord-tenant cases, provide detailed legal analysis with supporting authority rather than bare assertions about lease language.
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.