Whitman v. W.T. Grant Co.

Supreme Court of Utah · Torts

TortsNegligenceContributory NegligencePremises LiabilitySummary Judgmentcontributory negligenceplainly visible hazardduty to see and avoid danger

Facts

Whitman, a truck driver, delivered merchandise to the defendant's store and rode a freight elevator to the second floor to collect payment on part of the delivery. A clerk then showed him the stairway and told him to go downstairs and out the door. After descending the stairs in unfamiliar surroundings, Whitman opened the first door he saw to his left, turned to close it behind him, and stepped without looking in the direction he was moving. The doorway opened onto an elevator shaft, and he fell.

Issue

Whether the plaintiff's own deposition established contributory negligence as a matter of law, so that summary judgment for the defendant was proper. More specifically, the question was whether his failure to look before stepping through a door into an unknown area barred recovery despite the general standard of ordinary care.

Rule

When a hazard is plainly visible, a person ordinarily has a duty to see and avoid it; failure to do so is negligence either in not looking or in not heeding what was seen. A jury question may still exist if there is evidence of some circumstance that distracted the plaintiff's attention or prevented him from seeing the danger, so that even with due care he could be excused from observing and avoiding it. The standard remains that of the ordinary, reasonable, and prudent person, not an extraordinarily cautious one.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Boise, Lena Ortiz was leaving the back stairwell of a furniture warehouse operated by Silver Mesa Home Supply. A supervisor told her to "go through the door at the bottom and out to the lot," and Lena opened the first door she saw, turned to pull it shut behind her, and stepped forward without looking, falling into an uncovered service pit plainly visible from the threshold.

If Lena sues Silver Mesa for negligence and her deposition admits she stepped without looking, which is the best argument for summary judgment against her?

Explanation. The majority rule is that when a hazard is plainly visible, a person ordinarily has a duty to see and avoid it. Failure to do so is negligence either in not looking or in not heeding what was seen. Summary judgment is proper where the plaintiff's own account shows she stepped into an unknown area without looking and there is no evidence of distraction or some circumstance preventing observation. The case does not rest on no-duty or an extraordinary-caution standard. (Derived from Whitman v. W.T. Grant Co. (n.d.).)