.png)
A premises liability claim often involves proving responsibility for negligence that has led to the harm of another person. With any legal claim, plaintiffs should expect pushback from the defendant. In these cases, this often means subjection to the open and obvious doctrine.
Often, people seeking financial compensation for their connection to a dangerous condition on another person's grounds do not understand the ins and outs of legal defenses, which is what it usually takes to win their claim. On the other hand, property owners may not know they can use the doctrine to their advantage.
When going into a premises liability claim, it is critical to know the open and obvious doctrine in Missouri law.
Continue reading to learn everything a claimant or defendant should know before trial. Then, contact an experienced lawyer at Powell Law Firm.
Elements of a Premises Liability Claim
To know what the open and obvious doctrine is, it is critical to understand the different aspects of a premises liability claim. This is the case type in which people would see the application of this defense.
As such, let's consider the distinctive elements that go into winning a case like this.
What Is a Premises Liability Claim?
Premises liability is a part of personal injury law. It is when a property owner neglects the ordinary care of an estate, leading to an injury or death. These situations can span across residential or commercial properties and tend to be unique every time.
Common scenarios of premises liability claims include:
Lack of maintenance
Poor security
Unrestrained dogs or animals
Three Types of Plaintiffs
Cases that go to trial see three types of claimants:
Invitees
Licensees
Trespassers
An invitee is someone the property owner invites onto the premises. They are also known as business invitees because customers of companies are considered this type of claimant.
A licensee has permission from the property owner to be present on the premises.
Finally, a trespasser is someone who does not have permission to be on the property. People present on the land are considered trespassers until they can prove to have had permission to be there.
Determining fault when these claimants are involved can be difficult, as the deterrents vary based on the age of trespassers. Children who trespass are more likely to be understood in the trial court because they are less aware of obvious danger.
What an Injured Plaintiff Must Prove
To be successful in a court judgment, the plaintiff must prove several things, such as the following:
A dangerous condition existed on the property
The property owner knew or should have known about the hazard
The property owner failed to remedy or warn guests of the dangerous condition
The plaintiff was injured as a result of the condition
What Is an Open and Obvious Defense?
The open and obvious doctrine is an affirmative defense against a plaintiff's claim for premises liability. While the defendant can use a plaintiff's status as a trespasser in their favor, this defense is another argument to successfully uphold their side of the case.
It appeals to the idea that an open and obvious hazard existed on the property. As such, there is less reason to blame the property owner.
Ultimately, the open and obvious doctrine blames the victim rather than the property owner.
What Is an Open and Obvious Hazard?
An open and obvious hazard is a threat that a reasonable person would be able to recognize and often results in exercising reasonable care for their own safety. It relies on proving the dangerous condition existed and the plaintiff failed to protect themselves from the obvious harm the condition would impose.
It can be challenging to prove an open and obvious hazard existed because what is known and unknown in the victim's mind is understood only by the victim. That leaves room for dishonesty and almost no way to provide physical evidence they did not see the dangerous condition.
Outside of a summary judgment, Missouri law allows a jury to determine whether a hazard is open and obvious or not.
Example Case of an Open and Obvious Condition
The open and obvious defense can be found in the Missouri Supreme Court case Harris v. Niehaus. Originally, the jury sided with the plaintiff, but the appellate court found certain conditions an obvious hazard and overturned the original ruling.
Outline of the Case
A mother parked her car on a hill in a subdivision with her children inside. The car rolled down the hill and fell into a lake, resulting in the death of those inside. The Missouri court sided with the plaintiff.
Applying the Open and Obvious Defense
On appeal, the trial court reversed the original ruling due to the open and obvious doctrine. While the plaintiff considered the argument that the subdivision should take ordinary care of the hill being present, the appellate court found the presence of the hill to be an open and obvious risk that a reasonable person would view as a potential hazard.
Resultingly, the appeal sided with the defendant because the hill should have been viewed as "open and obvious."
How the Open and Obvious Doctrine Can Work Against Plaintiffs
The case Heitman v. Heartland Regional Medical Center in the Western District is an example of how the inclusion of the open and obvious doctrine in Missouri law can work against plaintiffs who may have been put at unreasonable risk.
To prove open and obvious hazards, it is helpful to include similar past scenarios that have happened to other victims.
Outline of the Case
A woman was carrying out a stay at a hospital. While exiting the shower in the bathroom connected to her room, she slipped and fell. During the initial trial, the jury sided with the defendant, viewing the hazard to be unseen through ordinary care and upkeep.
Appealing the Open and Obvious Doctrine
After the original ruling, the plaintiff appealed on the basis that the trial court failed to consider evidence of prior complaints about shower defects or unsafe conditions during slip and fall cases. Therefore, jury instruction referred too closely to the general rule of the open and obvious defense, failing to acknowledge similar circumstances.
How Absent Evidence Challenges the Open and Obvious Hazard
The appeal for this case ultimately helps the claimant determine the connection between their situation with others. As such, the open and obvious doctrine did not make sense to apply without identifying past evidence because these circumstances were never considered.
Ignoring past similar cases fails to prove a defective condition, a connection between the hazard and the injury, and the knowledge to identify the danger. Therefore, omitting this evidence weakened the argument of an open and obvious hazard because these facts could have supported the victim's side.
However, there is not much of a connection between these pieces of evidence and the open and obvious appeal. The past circumstances do not relate too much to the plaintiff's scenario.
The Outcome of the Appeal
The plaintiff appealed to the court after it sided with the defendant. The result of this appeal is still to be determined, though the original ruling is expected to be upheld.
Using the Open and Obvious Doctrine for the Offensive
Heitman v. Heartland Regional Medical Center is an example that identifying past evidence against an open and obvious hazard does not always make a proper defense. However, Emery v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., which went to the supreme court of Missouri, demonstrates how past evidence supports the doctrine.
The Case and Its Appeal
A customer injured themselves by slipping on pet food found on the floor of a Wal-Mart. The jury sided with the plaintiff, though an employee provided testimony about the frequency of these food spills.
On appeal, the defendant argues that the omission of the employee's testimony did not make sense, as frequent slip and fall cases are a sign of an open and hazardous condition. As such, the plaintiff should have been more aware of this dangerous condition and been on a careful lookout.
Just as with any other case of this nature, the outcome is determined by the jury. The evidence of past situations in Heitman v. Heartland Regional Medical Center was difficult to relate to each other, thereby working against the plaintiff during their appeal.
Slip and falls in a supermarket are generally pretty similar and easy to compare. Accordingly, the evidence of past accidents upholds the open and obvious doctrine.
The Bottom Line - Contact Powell Law Firm
Defendants can appeal to the law regarding the open and obvious hazard during a premises liability claim. However, they should expect a skilled defense of their arguments. That's why they must have trusted legal expertise at their side to help them successfully win their case. Powell Law Firm can also answer questions like, "What Is the average slip and fall settlement in Missouri?"
An experienced lawyer at Powell Law Firm can help defendants wield the best defense and use the open and obvious doctrine to their advantage. They have slip and fall lawyers too.
Likewise, plaintiffs who must defend their case against the doctrine should do so with a prepared and trustworthy legal team from Powell Law Firm. Understanding the ins and outs of this legal claim, we can help victims receive the proper compensation from their personal injury or premises liability claim.
Contact us today!