Slip & Fall Lawyer in Utah

Utah uses the traditional tripartite classification system. As a business invitee — a customer, shopper, or any person entering commercial property for purposes related to the business — you are owed the highest duty of care: the property owner must exercise ordinary care to inspect for hazardous conditions, remediate discovered hazards, and warn of conditions that cannot be immediately remediated. As a licensee — a social guest or someone entering with permission but not for commercial purposes — the owner must warn you of known hazards that you cannot reasonably discover, but need not actively inspect. As a trespasser, you are owed minimal duty — the owner must refrain from willful harm. Your status at the time of the fall determines the duty owed, and defendants regularly challenge status classification, arguing that a customer who wandered into a staff area or used an unauthorized entrance became a licensee.

Utah Code § 63G-7-402 requires that a written notice of claim be filed with the appropriate governmental entity within one year of the injury as a condition precedent to filing a lawsuit. The notice must identify the claimant, the circumstances, the date and location of the injury, the nature of the claim, and the amount sought. After receiving notice, the government entity has 60 days to approve or deny. If denied or unanswered in 60 days (deemed denial), the claimant has one year from denial to file suit — but this cannot extend the two-year personal injury SOL under § 78B-2-304. If you fell on a city sidewalk, a state university campus, a county park, or any government-maintained property, the one-year notice deadline is your immediate priority — shorter and more rigid than the general two-year SOL for private property falls.

Utah recognizes the open-and-obvious doctrine as a defense when the hazard that caused the fall was readily observable to a reasonable person exercising ordinary care. Under Utah's modified comparative fault system (§ 78B-5-818), open-and-obvious typically operates as a comparative fault factor rather than an automatic duty-elimination defense — it supports a finding that you should have seen and avoided the hazard, increasing your attributed fault percentage. If the open-and-obvious defense supports a finding that you were 50% or more at fault (the bar under § 78B-5-818), all recovery is eliminated. Exceptions to the doctrine include: you were foreseeably distracted by conditions the owner created or maintained; the hazard was unavoidable even if visible; or the owner's own conduct drew your attention away from the danger. An attorney must gather evidence of these exceptions early — including surrounding conditions, prior complaints, and the physical environment at the time of the fall.

No statewide Utah statute mandates snow and ice removal from commercial property. Liability for winter slip-and-fall incidents is governed by local ordinances (which vary by municipality) and the common law reasonable care standard. A property owner who knows or should know of icy conditions — from weather forecasts, prior similar incidents, or tenant reports — and fails to address the hazard within a reasonable time may be liable under the general premises liability framework. The key elements are: (1) the icy condition existed; (2) the owner had actual or constructive knowledge of it; and (3) the owner failed to exercise reasonable care to remedy or warn. Weather records, maintenance logs, prior incident reports, and witness accounts of the condition before the fall are the critical evidence in Utah winter slip-and-fall cases. Local ordinances in Salt Lake City and other municipalities may impose specific snow removal timelines that supplement the common law standard.

For an invitee slip-and-fall claim, you must establish: (1) you were a business invitee on the property; (2) the property owner had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition — actual knowledge means someone on staff knew about the hazard; constructive knowledge means it existed long enough that a reasonable inspection would have discovered it; (3) the condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm; (4) the owner failed to exercise reasonable care to remedy or warn; (5) the condition caused your injury; and (6) your comparative fault was less than 50% (under § 78B-5-818). Constructive notice — the most commonly contested element — requires evidence of how long the hazard existed. Surveillance footage showing the condition before the fall, maintenance logs showing no inspection was conducted, and prior complaints about the same hazard are the strongest forms of constructive notice evidence.