Utah Supreme Court
Does Utah's open and obvious danger rule bar recovery for construction site injuries? Coburn v. Whitaker Construction Co. Explained
Summary
Coburn tripped on orange construction netting lying across a public trail after seeing warning signs and recognizing the hazard. The district court granted summary judgment to Whitaker Construction, finding the netting constituted an open and obvious danger. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting Coburn’s request to abandon the open and obvious danger rule from the Restatement (Second) of Torts.
Analysis
In Coburn v. Whitaker Construction Co., the Utah Supreme Court reaffirmed the viability of the open and obvious danger rule in premises liability cases, providing important guidance on when land possessors can avoid liability for injuries to invitees.
Background and Facts
Julie Coburn was injured while walking on a public trail in Layton’s Kays Creek Parkway. Whitaker Construction had installed orange netting across the trail to deter access to a construction site, along with “Trail Closed Ahead” signs. Despite seeing the warning signs and recognizing the netting as a hazard, Coburn chose to step over the netting rather than walk around it. Her foot caught in the netting, causing her to fall and sustain arm and shoulder injuries. The netting was only “a couple of inches” off the ground and covered a span of about “nine inches to a foot.”
Key Legal Issues
The case presented two primary issues: whether Utah should abandon the open and obvious danger rule from the Restatement (Second) of Torts in favor of the Restatement (Third) approach, and whether the district court correctly applied the existing rule to grant summary judgment for the defendant.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Supreme Court declined to overturn its precedent in Hale v. Beckstead, noting that Coburn failed to demonstrate the rule was “unpersuasive and unworkable” or created “more harm than good.” Under the open and obvious danger rule, land possessors owe no duty when dangers are known or obvious to invitees, unless the possessor should anticipate harm despite the obviousness. The court found the netting was not an “extreme danger” that reasonable people couldn’t avoid through ordinary attention and perception. Additionally, Coburn had a safe alternative—walking around the trees to which the netting was attached.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that Utah’s premises liability law continues to follow the Restatement (Second) approach. For practitioners defending premises liability cases, the decision provides strong support for summary judgment when hazards are obvious and avoidable. Plaintiff attorneys should focus on whether genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the obviousness of dangers or the availability of reasonable alternatives, particularly in cases involving public land where heightened anticipation of harm may apply.
Case Details
Case Name
Coburn v. Whitaker Construction Co.
Citation
2019 UT 24
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20180668
Date Decided
June 18, 2019
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
Under the open and obvious danger rule, a land possessor owes no duty of care when the danger is known or obvious to the invitee and a reasonable person could avoid the hazard through ordinary attention.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law on summary judgment
Practice Tip
When challenging established precedent on certiorari, thoroughly address all elements of the test for overruling precedent: persuasiveness of original reasoning, workability in practice, and reliance interests.
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.