Contractors and property owners often find themselves squaring off against one another in breach of contract or construction defect actions. And as co-defendants in tort lawsuits, they may be fighting one another for a ruling on the Slavin doctrine in order to absolve themselves of liability. Broadly, the Slavin doctrine provides that a contractor is not liable for negligence in work accepted by the property owner that had a patent defect discoverable upon reasonable inspection. While the application of Slavin is generally one left for the jury, trial judges are increasingly willing to resolve this issue at summary judgment. These summary judgments can be problematic where the patency of the condition is at issue because whether a condition is latent or patent is generally a question of fact for the jury.