Moore v. Albertson's, Inc.
7 P.3d 506, 2000 OK CIV APP 58, 71 O.B.A.J. 1631 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landowner's duty to warn an invitee of a hazard is not negated by the 'open and obvious' danger doctrine if there is a question of fact as to whether circumstances, such as customer traffic or an incomplete cleanup, obscured the hazard or distracted the invitee.
Facts:
- Dorrine B. Moore and her husband, Larry E. Moore, were shopping together at an Albertson's grocery store.
- After paying, Mr. Moore left the store with the groceries while Mrs. Moore remained at the checkout to write a check.
- On his way out, Mr. Moore noticed an Albertson's employee crouched down attempting to clean a milk spill, but he believed Mrs. Moore could not see this from her vantage point.
- Approximately two minutes later, Mrs. Moore finished her transaction and started to leave, but then turned back into the store to approach the customer service area for a receipt.
- As she walked toward the customer service area, she had to sidestep another customer pushing a grocery cart.
- While moving to avoid the other customer, Mrs. Moore slipped on the milk spill and fell, suffering injuries.
- Before her fall, Mrs. Moore had not seen the spill on the 'beigey, creamy sort of color' floor, nor were there any warning cones present.
- After she fell, Mrs. Moore realized her clothes were becoming wet from a whitish liquid, and an Albertson's manager commented that the employee who tried to clean the spill had not done a good job.
Procedural Posture:
- Dorrine B. Moore and Larry E. Moore filed a negligence action against Albertson's, Inc. in an Oklahoma trial court.
- Albertson's filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the milk spill was an open and obvious danger for which it had no duty to warn.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Albertson's.
- The Moores, as appellants, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals, with Albertson's as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a hazard considered 'open and obvious' as a matter of law, thereby relieving a store owner of the duty to warn, when there is evidence that the hazard was difficult to see, that it was incompletely cleaned, and that the injured person's attention was diverted by other customer traffic?
Opinions:
Majority - Stubblefield, Acting P.J.
No. A hazard is not 'open and obvious' as a matter of law where factual questions exist as to whether circumstances obscured the danger or distracted the invitee. The court reasoned that while a property owner has no duty to warn an invitee of open and obvious dangers, the evidence presented here did not undisputedly show the hazard was obvious. Several factors created a question for a jury: 1) the milk may have been difficult to see on the cream-colored floor; 2) the spill may have been incompletely cleaned, leaving a slippery but not obvious film; and 3) Mrs. Moore's attention was diverted by avoiding a collision with another customer in a high-traffic area. Citing precedents like Spirgis v. Circle K Stores, Inc., the court found that a plaintiff's diverted attention can prevent a hazard from being considered open and obvious. Therefore, whether the hazard was open and obvious in these circumstances is a question of fact for a jury, not a question of law to be decided on summary judgment.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces that the 'open and obvious' doctrine is not a per se defense for property owners in premises liability cases. The ruling emphasizes that the determination of whether a hazard is 'open and obvious' is a fact-intensive inquiry that must account for the surrounding circumstances, including foreseeable distractions. This precedent makes it more difficult for defendants to obtain summary judgment in slip-and-fall cases where the plaintiff can present evidence of distractions or conditions that made the hazard difficult to perceive, ensuring that more such cases will reach a jury.
