When a Property Owner Blames You for Falling: Understanding Utah’s “Open and Obvious” Defense

Slip and fall cases often become more complicated than victims expect, especially when a property owner insists that the danger was “open and obvious.” In Utah, this defense is commonly used to avoid responsibility by arguing that the injured person should have seen and avoided the hazard. While the argument may sound straightforward, it does not automatically prevent someone from recovering compensation.

Courts recognize that even obvious dangers can still be unreasonably hazardous, and that property owners have a duty to maintain safe conditions. Understanding how the “open and obvious” defense works helps injured individuals protect their rights and respond effectively when blame is shifted onto them.

What the “Open and Obvious” Defense Means in Utah

The “open and obvious” defense is based on the idea that property owners may not be liable for injuries caused by hazards that a reasonable person would have noticed and avoided. For example, an obvious spill, a large patch of ice in plain sight, or a brightly colored obstruction might lead a defendant to argue that the danger was clear and that the injured person failed to exercise caution.

However, Utah courts do not treat this defense as an automatic shield from liability. Property owners still have an obligation to correct or warn about dangerous conditions, even when the hazard is visible. If the danger was likely to cause harm despite being noticeable, the owner may still be responsible for failing to remedy the condition or warn visitors.

How Defendants Use the Defense to Limit Compensation

Property owners and insurance companies often raise the “open and obvious” defense early to reduce or eliminate a claim. They may argue that the injured person was distracted, inattentive, or behaving unreasonably. These arguments are designed to increase the victim’s percentage of fault under Utah’s comparative negligence system. If the insurer can convince a jury or adjuster that the hazard was obvious, they may attempt to shift enough blame onto the injured person to reduce their compensation.

For example, insurers may argue that a customer should have seen a puddle in a grocery store aisle, recognized uneven pavement outside a business, or noticed debris in a walkway. These positions overlook the reality that people move through spaces expecting them to be reasonably safe, and that hazards often blend into their surroundings more than owners claim.

When the Defense Does Not Apply

There are many situations where the “open and obvious” defense fails because the hazard created an unreasonable risk despite being visible.

Courts recognize several important exceptions, including:

• Foreseeability of harm. Even if a hazard is obvious, property owners may still be liable if it was foreseeable that someone would encounter it and be harmed.
• Distractions in the environment. Businesses often create conditions that naturally draw a person’s attention elsewhere, such as signage, product displays, or heavy foot traffic.
• Danger that cannot be avoided. In some cases, a visitor must pass through the hazardous area to enter, exit, or navigate the property.
• Poor lighting or weather conditions. What seems “obvious” during ideal conditions may not be evident at the time of the fall.
• Hidden dangers within an obvious condition. A visible patch of ice may conceal a deeper or black ice layer that the victim could not reasonably detect.

These exceptions highlight the importance of evaluating each case on its own merits, not on the simplistic claim that the hazard was visible.

How Plaintiffs Can Counter the Defense with Evidence

Successfully challenging an “open and obvious” argument requires strong evidence showing that the property owner should have anticipated the risk.

This often includes:

• Photographs of the hazard and the surrounding area.
• Weather reports for outdoor falls.
• Witness statements describing lighting, crowding, or distractions.
• Store or business policies for maintenance and inspections.
• Video footage showing how long the hazard existed.
• Expert testimony about foreseeability and risk.

Compelling evidence demonstrates that the hazard was more dangerous than the property owner suggests, and that a reasonable person could not have avoided it despite taking standard precautions. It also helps counter attempts to assign an unfair percentage of fault to the injured person.

Why Legal Representation Matters in These Cases

When a property owner argues that a hazard was “open and obvious,” they are attempting to shift responsibility onto the injured person. Without legal guidance, victims may feel pressured to accept these arguments or settle for less than they deserve. Our experienced Salt Lake City attorneys understand how courts evaluate foreseeability, how to gather compelling evidence, and how to demonstrate that the property owner failed to meet their duty of care.

Waddoups Law provides the detailed investigation, legal knowledge, and advocacy that injured Utah residents need to respond effectively to open-and-obvious defenses. By focusing on evidence, foreseeability, and the property owner’s responsibilities, our Salt Lake County slip-and-fall attorneys help clients pursue the compensation they need to recover physically, emotionally, and financially.