Must plaintiffs prove notice when defendants create hazardous conditions? Edwards v. Utah's Johnny Appleseed Explained

In premises liability cases, the question of notice can determine whether a plaintiff’s case survives summary judgment. The Utah Court of Appeals addressed this critical issue in Edwards v. Utah’s Johnny Appleseed, clarifying when notice requirements apply in slip-and-fall cases.

Background and Facts
Kimberly Edwards slipped and fell on an oily substance while dining at an Applebee’s restaurant. She discovered a “blackish,” “yellowish,” “oily substance” on her shoe after the fall. Edwards sued the restaurant operator, alleging it negligently created the hazardous condition. During discovery, Edwards testified that she observed only restaurant staff—not other patrons—in the area where she fell, leading her to infer that an employee spilled the substance.

Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether Edwards needed to prove the defendant had notice of the hazardous condition when she alleged the defendant created it. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing Edwards could not establish notice under the Allen v. Federated Dairy Farms standard requiring knowledge and reasonable time to remedy.

Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s summary judgment ruling. Citing Jex v. JRA, Inc., the court explained that when a defendant allegedly creates a temporary hazardous condition, the plaintiff need not prove notice. Instead, the plaintiff must prove the defendant “acted negligently either in creating or failing to remedy the temporary unsafe condition.” Since Edwards presented evidence supporting her theory that restaurant staff created the condition, a genuine dispute of material fact precluded summary judgment.

Practice Implications
This decision highlights the distinction between cases where defendants create hazardous conditions versus cases where third parties create them. When defendants allegedly create the dangerous condition, notice requirements do not apply. Practitioners should carefully frame their theories of liability and ensure discovery supports claims about who created hazardous conditions.