The Utah Court of Appeals recently ruled on a slip and fall case involving Kimberly Blackwell and Holiday Oil Company. The court's decision, filed on July 2, 2026, confirmed that the lower court acted correctly in denying Blackwell's request for a specific jury instruction regarding safety laws. This ruling is significant as it clarifies what constitutes a 'safety law' in negligence cases, particularly those involving slip and fall incidents.
In this case, Blackwell slipped and fell while exiting a Holiday Oil convenience store in April 2018. She sustained a serious wrist injury that required surgery, leading her to sue the company for negligence. The jury found Holiday Oil not at fault, and Blackwell appealed, arguing that the trial court should have instructed the jury on certain safety laws she claimed were violated.
The dispute centers around whether the safety standards Blackwell cited—established by organizations like the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)—qualify as 'safety laws.' Blackwell contended that these standards should be considered evidence of negligence. However, the court ruled that these standards are not codified laws in Utah, and therefore do not meet the legal definition necessary to be considered 'safety laws.'
Blackwell's fall occurred when she stepped on a corner of an unsecured floor mat in the store. She argued that Holiday Oil was negligent in maintaining the mat, which had water pooled underneath it due to recent pressure washing. During the trial, experts testified about the safety standards related to floor mats and slip resistance, but the jury ultimately sided with Holiday Oil.
During the trial, Blackwell requested a jury instruction based on Model Utah Jury Instruction 2d CV212. This instruction states that the violation of a safety law is evidence of negligence unless the violation is excused. Blackwell argued that the safety standards she cited should qualify as safety laws, but the trial court disagreed, stating that they were not formally codified in Utah law.
The court's opinion, authored by Judge Gregory K. Orme, emphasized that the standards Blackwell relied upon were advisory and not legally binding. The court stated, 'Because the advisory safety standards Blackwell relied on at trial do not satisfy the definition of “safety law,” the trial court correctly declined to instruct the jury on MUJI CV212.'
This ruling is important for future negligence cases in Utah. It clarifies that only formally codified laws can be considered as safety laws in court. This means that individuals who are injured in similar circumstances may face challenges in proving negligence if they rely on non-codified safety standards.
The court's decision also highlights the importance of understanding the legal definitions of terms like 'safety law' as they relate to negligence. The ruling may influence how future cases are argued in court, particularly regarding the admissibility of safety standards as evidence of negligence.
Looking ahead, the case may not be over for Blackwell. While the court affirmed the lower court's ruling, she could potentially seek further legal options or explore other avenues for appeal. However, details regarding any potential appeals or related cases were not available in the court filing.