Rodney Shanner v. United States, 998 F.3d 822

On March 4, 2015, Pastor Rodney Shanner tripped on an uneven sidewalk outside the Central Arkansas Veterans Healthcare System, suffering serious injury; he and his wife sued the United States under the FTCA for negligence and loss of consortium.
A hospital police officer and Mr. Shanner identified an area where adjacent sidewalk slabs differed in height (about half an inch) as the site of the fall.
The Government moved for summary judgment arguing the defect was open and obvious, so no duty was owed; the District Court granted summary judgment for the Government.
The Shanners produced evidence (engineer and hospital safety specialist testimony, visual factors like black joint material) suggesting a reasonable person in Mr. Shanner’s position would not have noticed the hazard.
The Eighth Circuit reviewed de novo, found a genuine dispute about obviousness (and that after-the-fact identification is not dispositive), and reversed the District Court’s summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the sidewalk defect open and obvious?	Shanner: evidence shows a reasonable person would not have noticed the defect (engineer, safety specialist, visual concealment).	United States: post-accident identification by Shanner and officer and safety specialist testimony show defect was obvious.	Reversed District Court — genuine factual dispute exists; after-the-fact recognition is not dispositive.
Did the hospital have actual or constructive notice of the defect?	Shanner: record is underdeveloped but may show discoverability by reasonable care.	United States: no evidence hospital knew of the hazard.	Not decided on appeal; court refused to affirm SJ on this ground because the issue was not litigated and the record is underdeveloped.
Was Shanner compelled to encounter the hazard (forced encounter doctrine)?	Shanner: argues he was forced to encounter defect while performing pastoral duties.	United States: disputed/contested at trial level.	Not reached — appellate decision rests on factual dispute over obviousness.

Argenyi v. Creighton Univ., 703 F.3d 441 (8th Cir. 2013) (summary judgment reviewed de novo; construe facts for nonmoving party)
Yanmar Co., Ltd. v. Slater, 386 S.W.3d 439 (Ark. 2012) (elements of negligence under Arkansas law)
Shook v. Love's Travel Stops & Country Stores, Inc., 536 S.W.3d 635 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017) (obviousness test: what a reasonable person in visitor’s position would recognize)
Dollar Gen. Corp. v. Elder, 600 S.W.3d 597 (Ark. 2020) (landowner generally owes no duty if danger is known or obvious)
Noel v. Cox, 570 S.W.3d 510 (Ark. Ct. App. 2019) (factual disputes about obviousness preclude summary judgment)
Van DeVeer v. RTJ Inc., 101 S.W.3d 881 (Ark. Ct. App. 2003) (definition and application of obviousness standard)
Heisler v. Metro. Council, 339 F.3d 622 (8th Cir. 2003) (error to grant summary judgment on an issue not raised by the parties)
Jacobson v. McCormick, 763 F.3d 914 (8th Cir. 2014) (appellate court may affirm summary judgment on any ground supported by the record)