414 S.W.3d 488
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Plaintiff Julie Holzhausen attended a post–2006 World Series parade/rally near Busch Stadium, climbed over/under two metal pipes on Cardinals’ property, and fell from a ledge onto the below‑grade Metrolink tracks owned/operated by Metro, suffering injuries.
- Photographs in the summary‑judgment record showed a prominent drop‑off/ledge directly beyond the pipes; plaintiff admitted nothing physically obstructed her view once she climbed through the pipes but testified she was distracted by the crowd and by hearing a celebrity pass by.
- Plaintiff sued the Cardinals and Bi‑State Development Agency (Metro) for premises liability, alleging defendants failed to fence or barricade the grassy area bordering the ledge.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing (1) the drop‑off was open and obvious, negating duty, and (2) plaintiff’s status as an invitee did not change that rule; Metro relied on the same ground.
- Trial courts entered summary judgment for both defendants, concluding the ledge/drop‑off was open and obvious as a matter of law and defendants could reasonably expect invitees to appreciate and avoid the danger.
- The appellate majority affirmed; Judge Van Amburg dissented, arguing factual disputes about distraction and foreseeability should go to a jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the ledge/drop‑off "open and obvious" so as to negate duty? | Holzhausen: she did not see the drop‑off and was distracted by the crowd, so its obviousness to her is disputed. | Cardinals/Metro: photographic evidence and plaintiff's admissions show the large drop‑off was plainly visible; whether plaintiff actually saw it is irrelevant. | Court: The drop‑off was open and obvious as a matter of law; invitees are expected to discover such large, obvious hazards. |
| Could the defendants reasonably anticipate harm despite obviousness (Restatement §343A comment f)? | Holzhausen: crowd distractions and the advantage of getting a view justified expecting people to climb the pipes, so defendants should have anticipated harm. | Defendants: the ledge was not a provided walkway and the risk outweighed any advantage; distraction exception inapplicable here. | Court: No reasonable basis to anticipate harm given the danger’s obviousness; distraction and advantage exceptions did not apply. |
| Did summary judgment improperly bypass comparative‑fault determinations? | Holzhausen: openness/obviousness should affect comparative fault, not eliminate duty. | Defendants: Missouri precedent applies open/obvious doctrine post‑comparative fault. | Court: Open and obvious doctrine remains valid under Missouri comparative‑fault law; summary judgment appropriate. |
| Were genuine issues of material fact presented that should deny summary judgment? | Holzhausen: testimony about distraction, crowding, and others climbing the pipes creates factual disputes for a jury. | Defendants: plaintiff failed to point to properly preserved record facts creating a dispute; photographic record and admissions control. | Court: No genuine dispute as to material facts authorizing summary judgment for defendants; dissent would remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- ITT Commercial Finance v. Mid‑Am. Marine, 854 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. banc 1993) (summary‑judgment standards and appellate review explained)
- Harris v. Niehaus, 857 S.W.2d 222 (Mo. banc 1993) (adopts Restatement §§ 343, 343A(1) and frames open‑and‑obvious duty analysis)
- Goerlitz v. City of Maryville, 333 S.W.3d 450 (Mo. banc 2011) (movant may negate an element or show nonmovant cannot produce evidence for element)
- Bruner v. City of St. Louis, 857 S.W.2d 329 (Mo.App.1993) (crowd/distraction can create a jury question on foreseeability and discovery of an obvious hazard)
- Crow v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 174 S.W.3d 523 (Mo.App.2005) (whether an invitee actually saw a condition is irrelevant; the inquiry is whether it was discoverable as a matter of law)