Can a business invitee rely on oral contracts between property owners and snow removal contractors? Slatter v. Pans Out Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether an alleged oral contract between a property owner and snow removal contractor could establish a heightened standard of care owed to business invitees in Slatter v. Pans Out.

Background and Facts: Nichole Slatter slipped and fell on ice in a parking lot adjacent to her workplace, injuring her hand and wrist. Pans Out, an independent contractor doing business as Competitive Edge, had been hired to remove snow and ice from the lot. Slatter sued for negligence, claiming an oral contract required the contractor to clear the lot “down to the cement.” The district court granted summary judgment for the contractor.

Key Legal Issues: The case centered on whether an oral contract existed that would create a heightened duty of care, and whether a business invitee could benefit from such a contract. Slatter relied on the building manager’s deposition testimony that his “understanding” was that the contractor would remove all snow and ice down to bare cement.

Court’s Analysis and Holding: The Court of Appeals affirmed, applying the correctness standard to the legal conclusions. The court found that the building manager’s testimony reflected only his subjective expectations, not evidence of mutual agreement necessary for a binding contract. The testimony showed what he “understood” the contractor would do, not what the contractor actually agreed to do. Without a valid oral contract, the contractor owed only the ordinary duty of care of a reasonable snow removal contractor.

Practice Implications: This decision demonstrates that courts require clear evidence of mutual agreement to establish oral contracts. Practitioners should distinguish between subjective expectations and enforceable contractual obligations. The court noted that summary judgment is appropriate in negligence cases “only in the clearest instances,” but one party’s unilateral understanding insufficient to create genuine issues of material fact regarding contract formation.