Introduction

The case of Roxanne Perez v. Circle K Convenience Stores, Inc. involves a slip-and-fall dispute that centers on the duties owed by business owners to their customers. Roxanne Perez, a frequent patron of Circle K, suffered injuries after tripping over an end-cap display of bottled water in one of its convenience stores. The ensuing legal battle raised pivotal questions regarding premises liability and, more specifically, whether the existence of an unreasonably dangerous condition is necessary to establish that a duty of care exists. The dispute, now before the Supreme Court of Arizona, not only reconsiders previous determinations in similar slip-and-fall cases but also sets a new precedent by clearly demarcating the separation between the existence of duty and the determination of breach in premises liability litigation.

The parties in the dispute are Roxanne Perez, the plaintiff/appellant asserting negligence and premises liability claims, and Circle K Convenience Stores, Inc., a foreign corporation and business owner defendant/appellee. The case’s trajectory saw the lower courts granting summary judgment in favor of Circle K, holding that because the hazardous condition was open and obvious, no duty arose. However, the Supreme Court’s review has reoriented the analysis towards the nature of the business-invitee relationship.

Summary of the Judgment

In a detailed opinion authored by Chief Justice Timmer, the Court tackled the critical issue of whether the alleged risky condition—namely, an end-cap display of water—was a factor in determining the existence of a Duty of Care owed by Circle K to its invitee, Ms. Perez. The Court ruled that the determination of a duty is inherently a legal matter based on the existence of a special relationship (here, the business invitee relationship), and not on an analysis of whether the condition was unreasonably dangerous. In essence, regardless of whether the hazardous condition was open and obvious or classifiable as unreasonably dangerous, Circle K, as a business owner, automatically owed a duty of care to Ms. Perez by virtue of her status as an invitee.

Consequently, the Supreme Court vacated the lower courts’ summary judgment for Circle K on the issue of duty and remanded the case for further proceedings. Other aspects that concern breach and causation of negligence and premises liability claims must be fully explored at trial.

Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

The Judgment heavily relies on landmark decisions and established precedents that shape comparative analyses in premises liability cases:

• Dinsmoor v. City of Phoenix: This case underscored the principle that issues of duty are legal questions for the court and that the analysis should focus on whether the alleged risk arises within the relationship between the parties. The Court clarified that matters related to breach and negligence should be separated from the duty inquiry.
• Markowitz v. Ariz. Parks Bd.: Markowitz provides a clear framework for evaluating the duty owed by property owners. In Markowitz, the definitive duty owed by a state to its invitees was underscored independently of the obviousness of the dangerous condition, highlighting that the existence of duty arises from the property owner/invitee relationship.
• Preuss v. Sambo's of Ariz., Inc. and other related cases: Various cases including those by Nicoletti, Chiara, and McMurtry have outlined that while business owners have no obligation to ensure absolute safety, they must exercise reasonable care and warn of or remedy hazards that they either created, knew about, or should have discovered.

The decision thus clarifies that while the existence or nonexistence of an "unreasonably dangerous" condition bears on the breach inquiry, it plays no role in determining the existence of a duty of care owed to a business invitee.

B. Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning pivots on the fundamental concept that business owners owe their customers—by virtue of the business invitee status—a duty to maintain a reasonably safe environment. The opinion distinguishes between:

• Duty: A purely legal question derived from the relationship between the parties. Here, the special relationship of a business owner with its invitee mandates an affirmative duty to protect invitees from risks arising within the confines of the business premises.
• Breach and Causation: Factual determinations that require evidence showing that the defendant failed to meet the standard of care established by the duty. The dangerous condition, whether open and obvious or exceedingly perilous, is relevant for assessing if the conduct fell below the required standard.

The Court drew parallels to the Dinsmoor decision, reiterating that while case-specific facts may be instrumental in evaluating whether the risk of harm arose within the scope of the special relationship, these facts serve to guide the jury on breach issues—not the existence of the duty. By doing so, the Court prevents the conflation of duty with subsequent inquiries meant for breach and causation, reinforcing the separation first established in Preuss and Markowitz.

C. Impact on Future Cases and Legal Practice

The Judgment is poised to substantially influence future premises liability litigation in Arizona. Its key impact includes:

• Clarification of Legal Standards: Future courts will be expected to distinguish the legal inquiry of duty from the factual inquiries into breach and causation. This clarification provides clear guidance to litigants in structuring their arguments and evidentiary submissions in premises liability cases.
• Protection of Business Owners’ Rights: By establishing that the duty of care exists regardless of whether a hazardous condition is later found to be unreasonably dangerous, business owners are given a firmer footing to seek summary judgment on the duty issue only when the invitee relationship is in question.
• Focus for Jury Evaluation: The decision reiterates that questions regarding whether a condition is dangerous and whether it constitutes a breach belong to the jury’s fact-finding process, not to the preliminary legal determination of duty.

This nuanced differentiation is likely to affect settlement negotiations and trial strategies, ensuring that the duty analysis remains a discrete legal query separated from the factual determinations of breach and causation.

D. Complex Concepts Simplified

The Judgment introduces several sophisticated legal concepts that merit simplification for broader comprehension:

• Business Invitee: A person invited onto the premises for business-related purposes. Business owners owe these invitees a duty to maintain safe conditions.
• Duty vs. Breach: "Duty" refers to the legal obligation a party owes to another based solely on the relationship between them. "Breach" refers to the failure to meet that duty. The Judgment makes it clear that determining the existence of a duty is separate from proving that the duty was breached.
• Unreasonably Dangerous Condition: This term is used to describe situations where a physical condition creates an excessive risk of harm. While such a determination is crucial in establishing a breach, it does not affect whether a duty existed in the first place.

By drawing these distinctions, the Court ensures that the legal framework governing premises liability remains coherent and that the steps for establishing negligence are clearly sequenced.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Arizona’s opinion in Roxanne Perez v. Circle K Convenience Stores, Inc. fundamentally reaffirms that business owners owe an automatic duty of care to their invitees simply by virtue of the special relationship—even before any factual inquiry into whether a hazardous condition is unreasonably dangerous. This decision draws a clear distinction between the legal determination of duty and the subsequent factual inquiries into breach and causation, enforcing well-established precedents such as Dinsmoor and Markowitz.

For practitioners and litigants alike, the ruling offers crucial guidance. It underscores that:

• The existence of a duty of care is automatically triggered when a customer is present as an invitee.
• The evaluation of whether a condition is dangerously unsafe is reserved for breach and causation matters, typically evaluated by a jury.
• This separation prevents conflation of legal and factual inquiries and protects the integrity of the duty analysis in premises liability cases.

Ultimately, this Judgment is a significant contribution to Arizona case law and will influence the resolution of future premises liability disputes by ensuring that courts remain disciplined in their approach to separating duty from breach.