Phoenix Team Secures Dismissal of Catastrophic Injury Case Claims

In a significant legal victory, the Phoenix-based law firm Clyde & Co has successfully obtained a dismissal with prejudice of all claims against a homeowner in a catastrophic injury lawsuit. This ruling, issued on June 27, 2025, stemmed from an incident involving a gardener who suffered severe injuries while performing tree trimming services near a residential pool, an event that raises critical questions about premises liability and contractor safety.

The incident occurred in June 2023 when the gardener, employed by the homeowner's gardener without their consent, was trimming palm trees adjacent to the pool. Unfortunately, the rope securing him broke, resulting in a fall of approximately 15 feet onto a rock water feature, leading to a significant head laceration and multiple fractures in his arm, hip, and leg. The medical costs for his treatment exceeded USD 1.3 million, prompting the injured worker to file a lawsuit in September 2024 against both the homeowners and the arborist supply company that allegedly provided the defective rope.

Under premises liability theory, the Plaintiff argued he was a business invitee entitled to a safe environment, claiming that the rock water feature posed an unreasonably dangerous condition for which the homeowners did not provide adequate warnings. However, attorneys William VanDehei and Melissa Gardner from Clyde & Co contended that the Plaintiff's status as an independent contractor absolved the homeowners of such obligations. They maintained that the homeowners had no duty to warn about known or obvious dangers, such as a large rock structure that was plainly visible.

The case initially awaited the resolution of another premises liability case, Perez v. Circle K Convenience Stores, which was crucial to establishing the legal standards applicable to this situation. Following the Arizona Supreme Court's ruling in the Perez case, Clyde & Co reasserted their motion to dismiss, emphasizing that the Plaintiff lacked the necessary 'special relationship' to impose a duty on the homeowners. VanDehei argued that the risk originated from the allegedly defective rope supplied by the arborist company, not from the homeowners' property.

The court ultimately agreed with Clyde & Co's position, leading to the dismissal of all claims against the homeowners. This outcome not only highlights the effectiveness of Clyde & Co's legal strategies but also underscores the complexities involved in premises liability cases, particularly those involving independent contractors.

Legal experts have noted the implications of this case for future premises liability claims. Dr. Emily Harrison, a legal scholar and Professor of Law at Stanford University, commented, "This ruling clarifies the responsibilities of homeowners versus contractors and highlights the need for clear contractual relationships to define liabilities."

The implications of this case extend beyond the immediate parties involved; it raises questions about the responsibilities and protections afforded to independent contractors who frequently operate in potentially hazardous environments. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, this case may serve as a precedent for similar disputes in Arizona and beyond.

As Clyde & Co continues to advocate for its clients, the firm demonstrates its commitment to achieving favorable outcomes through meticulous legal strategy and expertise. This case serves as a reminder of the complexities inherent in personal injury law and the importance of understanding the nuances of contractor liability and homeowner responsibilities.

In conclusion, the dismissal of claims against the homeowners not only relieves them of potential financial liability but also contributes to the ongoing discourse on the legal protections available to independent contractors and the responsibilities of property owners. Moving forward, this case may influence how similar claims are approached in the judicial system, particularly regarding the definitions of business invitees and independent contractors in premises liability cases.