APPELLATE HIGHLIGHTS

  • SEE ALL
  • CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS

Cochegrus v. Herriman City, 2020 UT 14, 462 P.3d 357 (Mar. 26, 2020)

Mar 26, 2020

The supreme court identified variables bearing on a claim of constructive notice for temporary unsafe conditions in a premises liability case, including “the number of people using the premises, the frequency of use, the nature and prominence of the defect, its location on the premises, and its probable origin,” along with “the condition’s noticeability, such as its prominence, visibility, and location.” Reversing summary judgment, the court held a jury could reasonably infer constructive notice, based on evidence that the durable metal rod had been installed in 2006, rust or oxidation suggested it had been exposed to the elements for some time, and it was a “prominent condition in a residential, regularly maintained park strip.”