Perez v. Circle K: Reversed and Remanded

Arizona Supreme Court Clarifies That the Existence of Unreasonably Dangerous Condition Is a Breach Question

 
Perez v. Circle K
Arizona Supreme Court
March 12, 2025
JSH Attorneys:  Arcangelo Cella and Justin Ackerman

The issue of duty in a negligence case is generally a question of law for the trial court to determine, and whether a defendant breached that duty is, usually, a question of fact for the jury. However, it has not always been clear whether the absence of an unreasonably dangerous condition is assessed at the duty or breach phase of the negligence analysis in premises liability cases. The Arizona Supreme Court clarified this issue today, holding that whether an alleged condition was unreasonably dangerous is not part of the duty inquiry and is an element of breach.

Roxanne Perez was shopping at a Circle K when she tripped over a case of water at the end of an aisle and injured herself. Based on Perez’s admission that she would have seen the case of water if she had looked down, the trial court found that the case of water was undisputedly an open and obvious condition and therefore not unreasonably dangerous. Thus, the trial court concluded that Circle K did not owe Perez a duty and entered summary judgment for Circle K. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed, with the majority endorsing the view that the undisputed evidence that the case of water was open and obvious meant Circle K did not owe a duty to Perez.

The Arizona Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, reversed the Court of Appeals decision. The Court stated that duty in premises liability case, as in all negligence cases, is based on the nature of the parties’ relationship, and that the business owner-invitee relationship between Circle K and Perez established a duty. Clarifying prior case law, the Court explained that the only case-specific facts relevant to the duty inquiry are those establishing that the injury occurred in the context of a special relationship. That is, the element of duty may depend on facts showing when and where the injury occurred. In the context of this case, the Court held that, since Perez was on Circle K’s property as one if its customers at the time of her fall, Circle K owed her a duty of care.

The Court further explained that whether the condition that caused Perez’s injury was unreasonably dangerous or open and obvious was irrelevant to the existence of a duty. Instead, these facts determined whether Circle K breached its duty. Thus, the Court held, summary judgment based on the absence of a duty was not proper. The Court remanded the case for further proceedings, including on the issue of breach, which Circle K had not previously addressed.

Finally, despite remanding, the Court dismissed concerns that this framework could prevent defendants from obtaining summary judgment because breach is generally a fact question for the jury. The Court explained that breach may be decided as a matter of law on a motion for summary judgment where the record is undisputed and supports that result.