Arizona Supreme Court says Circle K stores have duty to protect customers from harm

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

ROXANNE PEREZ,
Plaintiff/Appellant,

v.

CIRCLE K CONVENIENCE STORES, INC.,
A FOREIGN CORPORATION,
Defendant/Appellee.

No. CV-24-0104-PR
Filed March 12, 2025

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
The Honorable Joan M. Sinclair, Judge
No. CV2020-010129

REVERSED AND REMANDED

Opinion of the Court of Appeals, Division One
257 Ariz. 271 (App. 2024)
VACATED IN PART

CHIEF JUSTICE TIMMER authored the Opinion of the Court, in which VICE CHIEF JUSTICE LOPEZ, JUSTICES BOLICK, BEENE, MONTGOMERY, KING, and PELANDER (Retired) joined.

CHIEF JUSTICE TIMMER, Opinion of the Court:

¶1 While shopping in a Circle K convenience store, Roxanne Perez tripped over a store display of bottled water and injured herself. She sued Circle K for negligence and premises liability. The issue is whether courts should consider if the store display constituted an unreasonably dangerous condition when determining whether Circle K owed Perez a duty of care. We conclude that whether Circle K’s store display was an unreasonably dangerous tripping hazard had no bearing on that duty issue. Because Perez was Circle K’s business invitee, it owed her a duty to keep the store in a reasonably safe condition while she was shopping. Whether the display was an unreasonably dangerous condition is relevant in determining whether Circle K breached its duty to Perez.

BACKGROUND

¶2 In March 2020, Perez visited a Circle K store to buy ice cream. After retrieving the ice cream, she turned to enter the next aisle when she tripped and fell over a single case of water placed on the floor at the end of that aisle as part of an “end-cap” display. Perez maintains she did not see the case of water before tripping.

¶3 Perez sued Circle K, alleging negligence and premises liability, claiming Circle K knew the water case was a hazard and failed to remove or warn her about it.

¶4 The superior court granted Circle K’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that Circle K owed no duty to Perez because the water display was an open and obvious condition. The court reasoned that Perez would have seen it had she looked down, and the display did not present an unreasonable risk of harm. A divided court of appeals affirmed.

¶5 We granted Perez’s petition for review because the issue of whether courts should consider whether a condition is unreasonably dangerous in deciding duty is a matter of statewide importance.

DISCUSSION

¶6 We review the entry of summary judgment de novo, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Summary judgment is appropriate if no genuine dispute of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

A. Circle K Owed Perez a Duty of Care

¶7 To prevail on a negligence or premises liability claim, a plaintiff must prove:

1. The defendant owed a duty of care.
2. The defendant breached that duty.
3. A causal connection exists between the breach and the plaintiff’s injury.
4. The plaintiff suffered damages.

¶8 Business owners owe a duty to invitees to keep their premises reasonably safe. Because Perez was an invitee, Circle K owed her this duty.

¶9 Arizona law does not require businesses to ensure absolute safety but does require them to remedy or warn of known hazards.

B. The Existence of an Unreasonably Dangerous Condition is Irrelevant to Duty

¶10 The key issue is whether a business owner’s duty depends on proving that a condition was unreasonably dangerous. Circle K and the court of appeals concluded that duty only arises if a hazardous condition exists. We disagree.

¶11 Our decision in Dinsmoor v. City of Phoenix clarified that duty is based on relationships, not the specific conditions present. A business owner’s duty arises from the business-invitee relationship, not whether a condition is unreasonably dangerous.

¶12 In premises liability cases, courts should focus on whether the plaintiff was an invitee, not whether the condition was hazardous.

¶13 Prior cases, such as Markowitz v. Arizona Parks Board, confirm that duty arises from the plaintiff’s status as an invitee, not from the existence of a hazardous condition.

¶14 Considerations of whether a hazard was “open and obvious” are relevant to whether the duty was breached, not whether it existed in the first place.

CONCLUSION

¶24 We vacate the court of appeals’ opinion, except for portions addressing evidentiary matters not before us. We reverse the superior court’s entry of summary judgment for Circle K and remand the case for further proceedings.