Benzaquen v. TS1 Partnership
Annotate this CaseIN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
----ooOoo----
Ann Benzaquen,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
TS1 Partnership Limited
Partnership; et al.,
Defendants and Appellees.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
Case No. 20020116-CA
F I L E D
(May 1, 2003)
2003 UT App 129
-----
Third District, Salt Lake Department
The Honorable Frank G. Noel
Attorneys: Jeffrey D. Eisenberg, Salt Lake City, for Appellant
Robert L. Stevens, Salt Lake City, for Appellees
-----
Before Judges Jackson, Greenwood, and Orme.
ORME, Judge:
Summary judgment is appropriate when "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Utah R. Civ. P. 56(c). "Therefore, when we review the district court's decision to grant summary judgment, we review the court's legal decisions for correctness, giving no deference, and review 'the facts and inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.'" J.R. Simplot Co. v. Sales King Int'l, Inc., 2000 UT 92,¶13, 17 P.3d 1100 (citation omitted).
The only issue properly before this court is whether
Defendants owed a legal duty to Plaintiff relative to her safely
crossing the street between the business premises and the
satellite parking lot. See Coleman v. Stevens, 2000 UT 98,¶9, 17 P.3d 1122 ("[W]e will not consider matters raised for the first
time in the reply brief."). Plaintiff cites no Utah legal
authority to support the proposition that Defendants owed such a
duty to Plaintiff under the facts of this case, and we are
unpersuaded by the authority Plaintiff cites from other
jurisdictions. Therefore, the district court properly entered
summary judgment in favor of Defendants. See, e.g., Hunsaker v.
State, 870 P.2d 893, 897 (Utah 1993) ("The issue of whether a
duty exists is a question of law to be determined by the
court[, and where Defendant] owed no duty to [Plaintiff] under
the standards set out in our prior decisions[,] . . . [Defendant]
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."); Donahue v. Durfee,
780 P.2d 1275, 1280 n.4 (Utah Ct. App. 1989) (noting that, even
with demise of open-and-obvious-danger doctrine, summary judgment
will still be appropriate in landowner liability cases "where the
landowner establishes undisputed facts showing he was not
negligent as a matter of law"), cert. denied, 789 P.2d 33 (Utah
1990).
Affirmed.
______________________________
Gregory K. Orme, Judge
-----
WE CONCUR:
______________________________
Norman H. Jackson,
Presiding Judge
______________________________
Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.