Phelps v. Hotel Management, Inc.
925 P.2d 891, 67 O.B.A.J. 3045, 1996 OK 114 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When reasonable people could reach different conclusions as to whether a visible object's dangerous nature was apparent, the question of whether it constitutes an 'open and obvious' danger is a question of fact for a jury, not a question of law for a judge to decide on summary judgment.
Facts:
- Harvey and Lois Phelps attended a meeting at a hotel operated by Hotel Management, Inc. d/b/a Seasons.
- While waiting in the lobby, Harvey Phelps and his daughter sat on a circular bench.
- In the middle of the circular bench was a large glass bowl containing a seasonal display of pumpkins.
- Lois Phelps alleges that when she sat down between her husband and daughter, she struck the back of her head on a sharp portion of the glass bowl.
- She further alleges that the sharp portion of the bowl extended over the seating area and was concealed by the decorations.
Procedural Posture:
- Harvey and Lois Phelps sued Hotel Management, Inc. in a state trial court for negligence and loss of consortium.
- The Hotel filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing it owed no duty because the glass bowl was an open and obvious danger.
- The trial court granted the Hotel's motion for summary judgment.
- The Phelps, as appellants, appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling in favor of the Hotel.
- The Phelps then petitioned the Oklahoma Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
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 a visible object that appears harmless but may conceal a potential for injury create a question of fact for a jury as to whether it is an 'open and obvious' danger, thus precluding summary judgment as a matter of law?
Opinions:
Majority - Kauger, Vice Chief Justice
Yes. When reasonable people could reach different conclusions about whether a visible object's dangerous nature was apparent, the question of whether it constitutes an open and obvious danger is a question of fact for the jury, precluding summary judgment. A business owner's duty to protect invitees from harm does not extend to dangers that are 'open and obvious.' However, the court distinguished between the visibility of an object and the obviousness of the danger it poses. Although Lois Phelps admitted the bowl itself was visible, the court found that this was not dispositive. The key unresolved questions were whether the bowl's dangerous protrusion into the seating area and its potential for injury were apparent to a reasonable person. Because Lois's husband and daughter also saw the bowl but did not perceive it as a danger, the court concluded that reasonable minds could differ. Therefore, whether the bowl constituted an 'open and obvious danger' is a material question of fact that must be decided by a jury, making summary judgment inappropriate.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'open and obvious' doctrine in premises liability law, establishing that the mere visibility of an object does not automatically make the danger it poses 'open and obvious' as a matter of law. The ruling emphasizes the distinction between perceiving a condition and appreciating the risk associated with it. By holding that the determination is a question of fact for the jury whenever reasonable minds could differ, the case makes it more difficult for property owners to obtain summary judgment in similar negligence cases. This shifts a degree of decisional power from judges to juries in borderline cases involving allegedly obvious hazards.
