Holly Grant filed a lawsuit against Lustre Pearl Denver LLC, doing business as Lustre Pearl Denver, and Rino (Edens), LLC after she allegedly fell inside Lustre Pearl on September 16, 2022. Grant alleged that she entered the bar, slipped on liquid, fell, and broke her wrist. Her claims included common law negligence and premises liability under Colorado’s Premises Liability Act.
Grant alleged that Lustre Pearl and Rino (Edens) acted unreasonably by failing to protect her from the danger of a wet floor that they knew or should have known was present. She also alleged that they failed to provide adequate lighting. The case involved questions about who controlled the premises, whether either company had notice of a dangerous condition, and whether Lustre Pearl acted reasonably under the circumstances.
Lustre Pearl admitted that it qualified as a landowner under the Colorado Premises Liability Act and that Grant was an invitee at the time of her fall. Rino (Edens), however, argued that it was not a landowner for purposes of the statute because it did not control the part of the property where Grant allegedly fell. Lustre Pearl was the tenant at the property, while Rino (Edens) was identified as the lessor.
In their motion for summary judgment, Lustre Pearl and Rino (Edens) argued that Rino (Edens) should have been dismissed from the lawsuit because Lustre Pearl controlled the interior of the bar. The motion stated that Grant testified she was inside the bar, not on the patio, when she fell. Although Grant did not remember the precise location of the fall, she testified that she fell once on the wood floor inside the bar. She also identified two possible areas inside the bar where the fall may have occurred.
The motion relied on the lease terms to argue that Lustre Pearl had responsibility for the relevant area. According to the motion, Lustre Pearl signed a lease agreement for the property in January 2017. Rino (Edens) later assumed the lease as lessor on May 1, 2018. The lease stated that Lustre Pearl was required to provide, install, and maintain the premises. It also stated that Lustre Pearl was responsible for keeping the premises, and every part of them, in good order, condition, and repair.
The motion acknowledged that the landlord retained certain rights related to the roof, exterior walls, and areas above and below the premises. However, Lustre Pearl and Rino (Edens) argued that those reserved rights did not amount to control over the interior condition that allegedly caused Grant’s fall. They also pointed to a temporary license for outdoor seating, under which Lustre Pearl assumed responsibility and liability for the outdoor seating area. Because Grant testified that she fell inside the bar, the motion argued that Rino (Edens) was not legally responsible for the condition at issue.
Lustre Pearl also argued that Grant could not establish that the bar knew or should have known about liquid on the floor before she fell. The motion stated that there was no evidence that anyone reported a spill before Grant’s fall. It also argued that there was no evidence showing who caused the liquid to be on the floor, what the liquid was, or how long it had been present.
The motion described Lustre Pearl’s staffing and floor-check procedures. According to the motion, three barbacks were assigned to work at Lustre Pearl on September 16, 2022. One barback worked behind the bar while others moved through the bar area. The motion stated that barbacks were expected to keep moving, walk the bar, keep floors clean, and clean spills as soon as possible. It also stated that rounds of the bar were supposed to occur every four to five minutes.
Lustre Pearl also relied on testimony from Preston Parker, the general manager, and Jessica Trulove. The motion stated that Parker patrolled the bar, identified spills, and cleaned them when necessary. It also stated that Trulove walked the floor after Grant reported the fall but could not locate a spill. According to the motion, Trulove walked the bar within a few minutes of the report. Parker also checked for spills after learning about the fall and did not see liquid on the floor.
Based on those facts, Lustre Pearl argued that Grant could not prove actual notice because there was no report of liquid on the floor before the fall. It also argued that Grant could not prove constructive notice because there was no evidence that a spill had existed long enough that Lustre Pearl should have discovered it through reasonable care.
Grant’s complaint also raised lighting as part of her claim. Lustre Pearl argued that the evidence did not show that lighting caused or contributed to the fall. The motion stated that Grant testified the bar was dimly lit with Christmas-light-type lighting. However, when asked what caused her to fall, she identified a wet floor and did not mention lighting.
Lustre Pearl also cited testimony from Parker and Conor Arnodo about the condition of the lighting. Parker testified that flashlights were not necessary for patrons to walk through the bar because it was not difficult to see. Arnodo testified that the lighting was dim but not dim enough to prevent people from seeing where they were going. Lustre Pearl argued that Grant had no testimony or report showing that the lighting fell below a standard of care. It also argued that there was no evidence of prior falls caused by lighting or prior reports about inadequate lighting.
Lustre Pearl further argued that Grant could not prove that it failed to exercise reasonable care. It maintained that a fall alone did not establish a breach of duty. The motion compared the case to a Colorado decision involving a fall on water, where summary judgment was upheld after evidence showed that an employee responded within minutes after being notified of the spill.
Lustre Pearl argued that its own employees responded promptly after Grant reported the fall. The motion stated that staff searched for a spill but did not find one. It also emphasized that employees had been making rounds before the fall and that the bar had procedures for locating and cleaning spills. Lustre Pearl argued that Grant did not present evidence showing that those procedures were unreasonable, that they were not followed, or that staff could have acted differently to prevent the alleged fall.
Finally, Lustre Pearl argued that Grant’s common law negligence claim could not proceed separately from her premises liability claim. The motion asserted that Colorado’s Premises Liability Act provided the exclusive remedy for injuries occurring on a landowner’s property when the statute applied. Because Lustre Pearl admitted it was a landowner under the statute, it argued that the negligence claim was barred.
The District Court of Colorado, Denver County considered Lustre Pearl and Rino (Edens)’s motion for summary judgment. The court explained that summary judgment was proper only when there was no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court also stated that the nonmoving party was entitled to favorable inferences from the undisputed facts and that doubts had to be resolved against the moving party.
The court did not make detailed factual findings on each point raised in the motion. Instead, it stated that findings of fact and conclusions of law were not required when ruling on a summary judgment motion under Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 56. After considering the motion, the court found that issues of material fact remained with respect to the claims Grant brought in her complaint. Because those factual issues remained, the court held that summary judgment would have been improper at that point.
The court denied Lustre Pearl and Rino (Edens)’s motion for summary judgment. The court also declined to find that the motion was substantially frivolous and denied Grant’s request for fees and costs.
If you were injured in a slip and fall or another accident on someone else’s property, our team handles premises liability matters involving unsafe property conditions, including slips and falls, elevator and escalator accidents, swimming pool accidents, animal attacks, fires and explosions, and falling objects. Our team can assist with the claim process by helping establish why you were on the premises, locating witnesses, gathering physical evidence, and reviewing information related to the injuries and damages claimed. To discuss a premises liability matter, contact our team.