Summary
The Montana Supreme Court reversed summary judgment for Talcott Properties in a premises-liability action brought by Craig Steichen, who was injured after slipping on water in a restroom while working as an independent contractor for Talcott’s lessee. The Court held that Talcott owed a general duty to use ordinary care in maintaining the premises and that Steichen’s independent-contractor status did not eliminate that duty in an ordinary premises-liability case. Whether Talcott breached its duty, including whether it should have anticipated harm despite the known or obvious danger, was held to be a question for the jury.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a property owner owes a premises-liability duty of ordinary care to an independent contractor working for the owner's lessee.
- Whether the open and obvious nature of the water hazard and Steichen's knowledge of the recurring water condition entitled Talcott to summary judgment.
- Whether the evidence created a genuine issue of material fact regarding Talcott's breach of its duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition.
Holdings
- A property owner owes a person foreseeably on the premises, including an independent contractor working for the owner's lessee, a duty to use ordinary care to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition and to warn of hidden or lurking dangers. Independent-contractor status is not a basis for eliminating that duty in an ordinary premises-liability case that is not a construction-site case.
- A known or obvious danger does not automatically absolve a premises owner from liability. The owner may be absolved only if the owner should not have anticipated harm despite the danger's known or obvious nature.
- Summary judgment was improper because whether Talcott breached its duty to use ordinary care in maintaining the building was a question of fact for the jury.
Key quotations
“Talcott’s duty to any of these persons is to use ordinary care to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition and to warn of hidden or lurking dangers.” (¶ 18)
“Whether Talcott had or should have conducted regular maintenance inspections are matters for the jury. Whether Talcott breached its duty is a question of fact to be determined by a jury.” (¶ 21)
Factual background
Talcott owned a Great Falls building and leased space to Bresnan Communications. Steichen, an independent contractor hired by Bresnan to clean the offices, slipped in water on a restroom floor on July 17, 2005, during his cleaning duties and suffered personal injury. The plumbing had a chronic leak, Bresnan periodically notified Talcott, and Talcott sent workers to address the problem, but water continued to reach the floor. The lease assigned Talcott responsibility for structural and building-system maintenance while Bresnan was responsible for routine interior cleaning and lighting.
Procedural history
Steichen sued Bresnan Communications and Talcott Properties after slipping in water on a restroom floor in Talcott's building while performing cleaning services for Bresnan. Steichen settled with Bresnan. The Montana District Court for Cascade County granted summary judgment to Talcott, concluding that Talcott owed Steichen no duty and, alternatively, that no reasonable jury could find a breach. The Montana Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
Remand instructions
The case was remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, including submission to the jury of the factual question whether Talcott breached its premises-liability duty.