Faller v. Endicott-Mayflower, LLC, 359 S.W.3d 10

Rhoda Faller fell while exiting Buck's Restaurant in the Mayflower Building due to a threshold consisting of a primitive stone sill and a raised aluminum doorsill with caution tape.
Faller was familiar with the threshold from prior visits and claimed it was defectively narrow, causing her to fall when stepping from the vestibule.
Plaintiffs allege design, construction, maintenance, and warning duties breached by Rader, Mayflower, and PPM, leading to a negligent condition and dangerous exit area.
The Jefferson Circuit Court granted summary judgment to all appellees, citing open and obvious condition, Faller's knowledge, and lack of evidence of a code violation; a presumption under KRS 98B.135 favored the defendants.
The Kentucky Court of Appeals originally affirmed, basing on Horne and Mayes and distinguishing the factual gap from McIntosh; the Kentucky Supreme Court remanded for reconsideration in light of McIntosh.
On reconsideration, the court again affirms, holding McIntosh does not alter the outcome because the threshold here was clearly distinguishable from the open-and-obvious curb scenario in McIntosh.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the threshold condition was open and obvious	Faller contends the threshold's narrowness and unfamiliarity create a fact issue.	Rader/Mayflower/PPM argue the threshold was open and obvious and known by Faller.	No genuine issue; threshold open and obvious
Whether appellees should have anticipated invitee injury despite open and obvious condition	McIntosh and Restatement principles require warning/repair where foreseeable distraction could cause harm.	Distinction from McIntosh; no foreseeability of injury from this threshold under the circumstances.	Not foreseeable; no duty to warn beyond existing warnings
Whether the caution-tape warning suffices; whether jury should decide adequacy of warning	Warning adequacy presents a jury question.	Warnings were sufficient to satisfy duty; summary judgment appropriate.	Warning not a jury question; summary judgment affirmed
Whether the analysis should be governed by contributory negligence doctrine	Abolition of contributory negligence should not bar recovery.	Court already rejected contributory negligence as a bar.	McIntosh analysis does not require treating it as a total bar
Whether there was a genuine issue of material fact about Building Code violation	Threshold dimensions could violate the Kentucky Building Code.	No substantial evidence of code violation; presumption aids defendant.	No code violation shown; summary judgment proper

Horne v. Precision Cars of Lexington, Inc., 170 S.W.3d 364 (Ky. 2005) (landowner liability for known/open hazards with duty depending on foreseeability)
J.C. Penney Co. v. Mayes, 255 S.W.2d 639 (Ky. 1953) (invitee's assumption of safety does not relieve duty to exercise ordinary care)
Lachat v. Lutz, 22 S.W. 218 (Ky. 1893) (early premises liability principle cited in duty analysis)
Lyle v. Megerle, 109 S.W.2d 598 (Ky. 1937) (premises liability considerations in Kentucky law)
Perry v. Williamson, 824 S.W.2d 869 (Ky. 1992) (duty to discover and warn about dangerous conditions; open-and-obvious doctrine)
McIntosh, 319 S.W.3d 385 (Ky. 2010) (open-and-obvious doctrine does not automatically bar recovery; foreseeability and distraction can create duty)