Foster v. Costco Wholesale Corp.
128 Nev. 773, 291 P.3d 150, 128 Nev. Adv. Rep. 71 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner owes a duty of reasonable care to entrants for risks that exist on the landowner’s property. The open and obvious nature of a dangerous condition does not automatically relieve a landowner from this duty, but is instead a factor to be considered in assessing whether the landowner exercised reasonable care and in apportioning comparative fault.
Facts:
- In October 2005, Stephen L. Foster was shopping at a Costco warehouse store in Henderson, Nevada.
- While in the paper goods aisle, Foster observed a Costco employee restocking shelves from several wooden pallets placed in the aisle.
- No barricades were set up to warn customers or prevent them from entering the aisle during the restocking.
- Foster's left toe caught the corner of a wooden pallet that was partially obscured by a slightly turned box that hung over its edge.
- Foster fell and sustained injuries to his left knee, right shoulder, and right-hand ring finger.
Procedural Posture:
- Stephen L. Foster filed a negligence complaint against Costco in the district court.
- Costco filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the pallet was an open and obvious hazard.
- The district court granted Costco's motion for summary judgment, finding Costco did not breach its duty of care.
- Foster, as appellant, appealed the grant of summary judgment to the Nevada Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the open and obvious nature of a dangerous condition on a landowner's property automatically relieve the landowner of the duty of reasonable care owed to entrants?
Opinions:
Majority - Cherry, C.J.
No. The open and obvious nature of a dangerous condition does not automatically relieve a landowner from the general duty of reasonable care. Adopting the rule from the Restatement (Third) of Torts § 51, this court holds that a landowner owes a general duty of reasonable care to entrants for risks existing on the property. The traditional 'open and obvious' doctrine, which completely barred recovery, is replaced by a framework where the obviousness of a hazard is a factor for the jury to consider. This factor bears on the assessment of whether the landowner breached its duty of care and on the determination of the entrant's comparative negligence. In this case, summary judgment was improper because material questions of fact remain as to whether Costco acted reasonably by allowing the pallet to be in the aisle without warning and whether Foster failed to exercise reasonable self-protection.
Analysis:
This decision officially aligns Nevada's premises liability law with the modern trend embodied in the Restatement (Third) of Torts, moving away from a rigid, status-based rule to a more flexible, fact-intensive standard of reasonable care. By holding that an open and obvious danger is not a complete bar to recovery, the court makes it more difficult for landowners to win negligence cases on summary judgment. Future cases involving obvious hazards will more likely proceed to a jury, which will weigh the reasonableness of the landowner's conduct against the entrant's comparative fault, potentially leading to more recoveries for plaintiffs who are injured by foreseeable risks, even those that are not hidden.
