BENZAQUEN v. TS1 PARTNERSHIP

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.

WE CONCUR: Norman H. Jackson, Presiding Judge, and Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge.