Utah Court of Appeals
What notice must a business have of unsafe conditions in slip-and-fall cases? Gowe v. Intermountain Healthcare, Inc. Explained
Summary
Plaintiff slipped on a puddle of rainwater in the entryway of an Intermountain Healthcare clinic and sued for negligence. The district court granted summary judgment, finding no evidence that IHC had actual or constructive notice of the unsafe condition before plaintiff’s fall.
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals in Gowe v. Intermountain Healthcare, Inc. reinforced the strict evidentiary requirements for establishing liability in slip-and-fall cases involving temporary unsafe conditions. This decision provides important guidance for practitioners handling premises liability claims.
Background and Facts
Aviva Gowe slipped and fell on a puddle of rainwater in the entryway of an Intermountain Healthcare clinic. She filed a negligence lawsuit alleging that IHC negligently allowed the water to accumulate on the tile floor. The district court granted summary judgment for IHC, concluding that Gowe failed to present evidence that IHC knew the puddle existed or had an opportunity to discover the unsafe condition before her fall.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether Gowe presented sufficient evidence to establish that IHC had actual or constructive notice of the temporary unsafe condition. For temporary conditions, Utah law requires proof that the defendant had notice of the hazard and sufficient time to remedy it.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court of appeals affirmed the summary judgment, finding Gowe’s evidence insufficient on both notice theories. Regarding actual notice, the court determined Gowe failed to preserve her appellate arguments because she presented different theories to the district court. For constructive notice, the court rejected Gowe’s reliance on speculation about gradual water accumulation, emphasizing that constructive notice requires evidence showing the condition existed for “an appreciable time.” The court distinguished a New York case that Gowe cited, noting Utah law requires specific evidence of duration rather than inferences about accumulation patterns.
Practice Implications
This decision underscores the importance of argument preservation and thorough factual development in premises liability cases. Practitioners must ensure consistency between district court and appellate arguments, and must gather concrete evidence about the duration of unsafe conditions rather than relying on speculation about how they formed.
Case Details
Case Name
Gowe v. Intermountain Healthcare, Inc.
Citation
2015 UT App 105
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20130884-CA
Date Decided
April 30, 2015
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A plaintiff in a slip-and-fall case cannot establish constructive notice of a temporary unsafe condition through speculation about how water accumulated without evidence of how long the condition existed.
Standard of Review
Correctness for summary judgment rulings
Practice Tip
When opposing summary judgment in slip-and-fall cases, present specific evidence regarding the duration of unsafe conditions rather than relying on speculation about gradual accumulation.
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.