Store owners have a legal responsibility to keep their shops “reasonably safe” for customers, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled March 12.
The justices rejected claims by Circle K that because the case of water that Roxanne Perez tripped over was “open and obvious,” the company cannot be held liable for her injuries.
None of that means Perez ultimately will win her case. The ruling sends the case back to a trial court which had thrown out her lawsuit as lacking legal merit.
But the decision is significant because it spells out a legal standard for the responsibilities of store owners to ensure that those they invite onto their property, like shoppers, are not subject to unreasonable risk of injury. And that places them on notice about what precautions they now have to take to shield themselves from liability.
According to court records, Perez went to a Circle K store in 2020 that she frequently patronized in Phoenix to buy ice cream. After getting the ice cream from the freezer, she turned to enter the next aisle when she tripped and fell over a single case of water on the floor at the end of the aisle.
The company said it had been placed there as an “end cap” display, a common tool of retailers to show off certain items. Perez said she did not see it before tripping.
In 2022, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Joan Sinclair threw out the lawsuit.
“While the case of water may have created a dangerous condition, it did not create an unreasonably dangerous condition,” the judge wrote.
“The plaintiff could have seen the case of water if she looked down,” said Sinclair. “She is expected to take care of herself and Circle K owned no duty to the plaintiff in this context.”
Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer, writing for the unanimous Supreme Court, said it’s not that simple.
“Indisputably, Circle K, as a business owner, has an affirmative duty to make and keep its markets reasonably safe for customers, who are invitees,” she said. And in this case, it is clear that Perez was an “invitee.”
“Thus, as a matter of law, Circle K owed a duty of care to Perez,” Timmer said. That means that the trial judge should not have barred Perez from pursuing her claim.
All that sets the stage for what comes next.
Timmer said that whether that end cap — and the fact it was only one crate high — was unreasonably dangerous is something that the trial court will have to consider in deciding whether Circle K had a duty to protect patrons in such circumstances and whether it breached the standard of conduct in complying with that duty.
Similarly, she said, a trial court can address the questions of whether the display was “open and obvious.”
The chief justice said the March 12 ruling does not strip business owners of their ability to have claims against them thrown out before actually having to go to a full-blown trial. Timmer said there are circumstances where there is no real dispute over the facts — the issues that are decided by juries — leaving a trial judge free to conclude that the law does not create a legal liability.
There was no immediate response from the Arizona Retailers Association to the ruling and the implications to its members.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by PostX News and is published from a syndicated feed.)
