Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. v. Webb
2013 Ky. LEXIS 578
| Ky. | 2013Background
- Betty Webb slipped on water in front of the entrance to Dick’s Sporting Goods during rain; mats at entryway were shifted into a V with a visible pool of water.
- Webb stepped from a mat onto a nearby tile she believed dry, but the tile was wet and she fell, injuring herself.
- Store did not place warning signage about wet floors at the entrance.
- Trial court granted summary judgment to Dick’s on open-and-obvious grounds; Court of Appeals reversed, relying on McIntosh to impose a duty to eliminate or reduce open-and-obvious hazards.
- This Court granted review to assess McIntosh’s reach, concluded the case is not an open-and-obvious scenario and affirmed the Court of Appeals on the duty issue, with the breach and factual disputes to be decided by a jury.
- Webb’s evidence suggests Dick’s had an affirmative duty to maintain reasonably safe premises, and whether it breached that duty is for the jury to determine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the hazard was open and obvious | Webb argues the condition was not open-and-obvious to her | Dick’s contends the hazard was open-and-obvious and duty owed is negated | Not an open-and-obvious hazard; duty remains for jury |
| Whether Dick’s owed a duty to maintain reasonably safe premises | Dick’s failure to maintain caused foreseeable risk | Open-and-obvious doctrine absolves duty to warn | Dick’s had an affirmative duty to maintain reasonably safe premises; jury to decide breach |
| Whether there was a breach of duty by Dick’s | Remedial steps (mats, potential heaters) could reduce risk | Reasonable care does not require full remediation or perfect fix | Breach question for the jury; summary judgment improper |
| Whether Webb’s comparative fault affects outcome | Webb’s conduct in stepping onto a tile was reasonable under the circumstances | Webb’s choices could negate liability | Comparative fault for jury to resolve; does not bar claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Lyle v. Megerle, 109 S.W.2d 598 (Ky. 1937) (affirmative duty to maintain safe premises; water/slush on floor foreseeability)
- McIntosh, 319 S.W.3d 385 (Ky. 2010) (open-and-obvious analysis limited; duty to maintain premises remains)
- Lyle v. Megerle, 109 S.W.2d 598 (Ky. 1937) (affirmative duty to maintain safe premises; water/slush on floor foreseeability)
- Emberton v. GMRI, Inc., 299 S.W.3d 565 (Ky. 2009) (appellate may affirm on other grounds if correct result reached)