Foster v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 291 P.3d 150

Foster tripped over a wooden pallet placed in an aisle by a Costco employee.
Foster sued Costco for injuries; Costco moved for summary judgment.
The district court granted summary judgment concluding the hazard was open and obvious and Costco bore no duty.
The court later explained the rule along the lines of the open-and-obvious doctrine and Gunlock.
The Nevada Supreme Court adopts the Restatement (Third) approach, imposing a general duty of reasonable care regardless of open/obvious status.
On remand, the open-and-obvious defense is to be weighed with reasonable-care analysis and potential comparative fault.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does open and obvious danger bar the landowner’s duty to entrants?	Foster argues open/obvious does not bar liability; duty remains.	Costco argues no duty due to open and obvious hazard.	No; open/obvious does not automatically bar duty.
Was the district court correct to grant summary judgment on duty as a matter of law?	Genuine issues of material fact exist about foreseeability and handling of the pallet.	Open-and-obvious rule precludes liability as a matter of law.	Summary judgment improper; factual questions remain.
Should the distraction and visibility considerations affect duty under the Restatement Third?	Distraction by displays could render the pallet unnoticed.	Duty limited to known hazards; distraction not relevant.	Third Restatement governs; factors to assess reasonable care.

Gunlock v. New Frontier Hotel, 78 Nev. 182, 370 P.2d 682 (Nev. 1962) (landowner not liable for injuries from dangers obvious on reasonable observation)
Moody v. Manny’s Auto Repair, 110 Nev. 320, 871 P.2d 935 (Nev. 1994) (duty of reasonable care under circumstances; open/obvious is not absolute)
Rogers v. Tore, Ltd., 85 Nev. 548, 459 P.2d 214 (Nev. 1969) (invitee’s knowledge of danger does not inevitably bar recovery)
Harrington v. Syufy Enters., 113 Nev. 246, 931 P.2d 1378 (Nev. 1997) (open-and-obvious rule does not bar other liability theories; duty assessed by reasonableness)
Michalski v. Home Depot, Inc., 225 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2000) (discretion to apply distraction exception; open/obvious not definitive)