Hope Med. Park Hosp. v. Varner, 568 S.W.3d 818

Carrie Varner, a long-time hospital employee and business invitee, tripped on exposed tree roots in a landscaped median between a hospital parking lot and the hospital entrance and suffered injuries.
The accident occurred when Carrie crossed the median (a common shortcut) during a visit to the hospital for a deposition; she testified she had seen the roots before the fall and thought she could avoid them by being careful.
Witnesses (coworker Dr. Goins and hospital safety officer Kelly Holybee) confirmed the roots were visible, people routinely crossed the median, and alternative routes around the tree existed.
Plaintiffs sued Hope Medical Park Hospital for negligence; a jury awarded Carrie $350,000; Hope moved for directed verdict/JNOV asserting no duty to warn because the hazard was known/obvious.
The trial court denied Hope’s motions; on appeal the Arkansas Court of Appeals reviewed whether Hope owed a legal duty to warn under premises-liability law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hope owed a duty to warn of the tree roots to an invitee who saw them	Varner argued the hospital was negligent in allowing a hazardous condition to exist and should be liable for her injuries	Hope argued no duty existed because the tree roots were known and obvious to Varner	Court held no duty existed — danger was known and obvious, so no duty to warn
Whether the “forced-to-encounter” exception applied	Varner could argue she was forced to cross the median as a practical matter	Hope argued alternative safe routes were available and Varner was not compelled to cross	Court held exception did not apply — evidence showed she could have walked around the roots
Whether jury verdict was supported by substantial evidence such that JNOV should be denied	Varner relied on jury fact-finding and testimony about injury and routine crossing	Hope argued as a matter of law there was no duty, so JNOV required	Court reversed jury verdict and dismissed because duty question resolved against plaintiff
Standard for duty determination in premises liability	Varner relied on general duty to keep premises safe for invitees	Hope relied on the known/obvious-danger rule to negate duty	Court applied settled Arkansas law: no duty for known/obvious dangers unless forced to encounter; duty absent here

Duran v. Sw. Ark. Elec. Coop. Corp., 537 S.W.3d 722 (Ark. 2018) (elements of negligence and duty explained)
Lively v. Libbey Mem'l Physical Med. Ctr., Inc., 841 S.W.2d 609 (Ark. 1992) (definition of business invitee)
Delt v. Bowers, 249 S.W.3d 162 (Ark. App. 2007) (landowner duty to maintain premises for invitees)
Young v. Paxton, 873 S.W.2d 546 (Ark. 1994) (no duty when danger is known or obvious)
Shook v. Love's Travel Stops & Country Stores, Inc., 536 S.W.3d 635 (Ark. App. 2017) (duty question reviewed de novo; known/obvious-rule applied)
Jenkins v. Int'l Paper Co., 887 S.W.2d 300 (Ark. 1994) (forced-to-encounter exception to known/obvious rule)
Van DeVeer v. RTJ, Inc., 101 S.W.3d 881 (Ark. App. 2003) (definition of obvious danger and "known" explained)
Bedell v. Williams, 386 S.W.3d 493 (Ark. 2012) (reversing verdict where no duty existed)
Ken's Disc. Bldg. Materials, Inc. v. Meeks, 233 S.W.3d 176 (Ark. App. 2006) (premises-liability no-duty precedent)
Carton v. Mo. Pac. R.R. Co., 798 S.W.2d 674 (Ark. 1990) (discussing exceptions where invitee is compelled to encounter known risks)