Phoenix Team obtains Dismissal with Prejudice of All Claims in Catastrophic Injury Case

Associate William VanDehei and Phoenix team obtain dismissal with prejudice of all claims against homeowner in catastrophic injury case.

In June 2023, the homeowners’ gardener retained the Plaintiff, without their knowledge, to trim three palm trees near their backyard pool. While the Plaintiff was completing the work, his rope broke and he fell approximately 15 feet, landing on a rock water feature that feeds into the pool. As a result, the Plaintiff suffered a significant head laceration as well as multiple fractures to his arm, hip, and leg that required several surgeries and extended hospitalization with total medical costs exceeding USD 1.3 million.

In September 2024, the Plaintiff filed suit against the homeowners under a premises liability theory. Specifically, the Plaintiff claimed he was a business invitee and that the rock water feature constituted an unreasonably dangerous condition for which the homeowners did not provide a warning. Plaintiff also sued a Phoenix-based arborist supply company that allegedly sold the subject rope under a product liability theory, claiming the rope was defective and broke during normal, intended use.

Senior Counsel Melissa Gardner and Associate William VanDehei moved to dismiss all claims against the homeowners, arguing that the Plaintiff was not a business invitee but an independent contractor, which the homeowners had no duty to warn of known or obvious dangers—such as a rock water feature that stands nearly four feet tall and more than six feet wide.

Ultimately, the Court deferred a final decision pending the Arizona Supreme Court’s resolution of another premises liability case, Perez v. Circle K Convenience Stores, 564 P.3d 623 (Ariz. 2025). The Plaintiff then amended his complaint to add additional claims of defective design and manufacturing against the company that allegedly produced the subject rope.

Following the Arizona Supreme Court’s ruling in Perez, Clyde & Co renewed the motion to dismiss all claims against the homeowners, arguing that the Plaintiff was not a business invitee. Associate William VanDehei argued the Plaintiff therefore lacked the “special relationship” necessary to establish a duty on the part of the homeowners. Mr. VanDehei further argued that any risk to the Plaintiff originated with the allegedly defective rope. Because the homeowners did not provide the rope, any danger it presented did not arise within the scope of a relationship between the Plaintiff and the homeowners as Perez requires to establish a duty. The Court agreed, ultimately finding that the Plaintiff was an independent contractor and the homeowners were not required to provide warnings for a condition that was neither hidden nor latent. Because the homeowners had no duty towards the Plaintiff, the Court dismissed his claims against them with prejudice.

This win highlights Clyde & Co’s aggressive defense strategy to obtain favorable, early resolution of legal actions for our clients.