When do businesses owe a duty of care to customers injured by employee conduct? Davis v. Wal-Mart Explained

In Davis v. Wal-Mart, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a business owes a duty of care to customers who are injured in collisions with employees. The case provides important guidance on when courts should apply the B.R. ex rel. Jeffs v. West five-factor analysis for determining duty.

Background and Facts

While shopping at Wal-Mart, Twila Davis moved close to an employee who was stocking merchandise on shelves. When Davis bent down to examine an item on a lower shelf, the employee finished her task and turned to walk away without seeing Davis crouched nearby. The employee collided with Davis, allegedly causing injuries. The district court granted summary judgment for Wal-Mart, concluding that Wal-Mart owed no duty to Davis under the Jeffs five-factor test.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issue was whether Wal-Mart owed a duty of care to Davis as a business invitee. The district court had applied the Jeffs factors and concluded that the collision was not foreseeable and that public policy did not support imposing liability on businesses for such “low-probability events.” Wal-Mart also argued that the open and obvious danger rule barred Davis’s claim.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the district court erred in its duty analysis. The court emphasized that Utah law already establishes that businesses owe a duty of reasonable care to their invitees. Because this duty exists as a matter of law, the district court should not have conducted a case-specific Jeffs analysis. The court explained that Jeffs requires duty to be “determined as a matter of law and on a categorical basis for a given class of tort claims,” not through fact-intensive inquiry into the specific circumstances of each case.

Regarding the open and obvious danger rule, the court found it inapplicable because Wal-Mart’s arguments focused on Davis’s conduct rather than dangerous conditions on the property, and reasonable minds could differ about whether any obvious danger existed.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that when established duties already exist in Utah law, courts should not engage in unnecessary Jeffs analyses. The invitee-business relationship creates a well-established duty of reasonable care that does not require case-by-case determination. Practitioners should distinguish between duty (a categorical legal determination) and breach (which involves fact-specific analysis of whether the defendant’s conduct fell below the reasonable care standard). The ruling also clarifies that the open and obvious danger rule applies to conditions or activities “on the land,” not to subsequent conduct by the injured party.