What evidence is required to prove constructive notice in Utah slip and fall cases? Brown v. Fruit Heights Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals recently addressed a critical evidentiary question in premises liability law: what proof is required to establish constructive notice when a plaintiff slips on black ice in a municipal parking lot?

Background and Facts

In Brown v. Fruit Heights, Shelly Brown regularly used a City-owned park-and-ride lot for her daily commute. On December 27, 2017, two days after a Christmas Day snowstorm, Brown slipped and fell on black ice in the lot. She testified that the City had plowed driving areas but left snow under parked vehicles, which she believed melted during the day and refroze at night. Brown sued the City for negligence, claiming the City created the dangerous condition by plowing without salting and had both actual and constructive knowledge of the hazardous ice.

Key Legal Issues

The case centered on three theories of premises liability: whether the City (1) negligently created the dangerous condition, (2) had actual knowledge of the black ice, or (3) had constructive knowledge because the condition existed long enough that the City should have discovered it. The court also addressed whether the trial court impermissibly weighed evidence in granting summary judgment.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the City. Regarding creation of the dangerous condition, the court found Brown failed to produce evidence that plowing without salting would have created ice that wouldn’t have formed if the City hadn’t plowed at all. For actual knowledge, Brown’s email to the City nearly two years earlier about sidewalk conditions couldn’t establish notice of parking lot ice on the date of her fall.

Most significantly for future cases, the court addressed constructive notice. Following Warrick v. Property Reserve Inc., the court emphasized that transitory conditions like black ice require evidence of how long the condition existed. Brown produced no evidence of temperatures, timing of ice formation, or other facts from which a jury could reasonably infer the ice had existed for an “appreciable time.” Mere speculation that ice formed through a melt-and-freeze cycle was insufficient.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that Utah courts distinguish between durable conditions (like protruding objects) and transitory conditions (like ice or water) in premises liability cases. For transitory conditions, plaintiffs must present concrete evidence—such as meteorological data, witness testimony about timing, or expert analysis—to establish how long the dangerous condition existed. Arguments based purely on conjecture about natural processes will not survive summary judgment, even when the plaintiff need not prove the “precise” timing of formation.