Sholer v. ERC MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC
2011 OK 24
| Okla. | 2011Background
- Sholer was injured diving head first into an apartment complex pool on May 31, 2005, allegedly due to unsafe pool conditions.
- Plaintiff alleged gates, lighting, signage, and unknown depth contributed to a dangerous condition.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment asserting no duty due to open and obvious danger and undisputed facts (drinking, late hour, shallow depth, depth markers).
- Discovery and deposition evidence showed disputes about whether no-diving signage and depth markers were present and whether lighting concealed depth.
- Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, the Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari, and de novo review was conducted on open/obviousness and duty questions.
- Court held disputed facts regarding whether the danger was open/obvious or deceptively safe should be resolved by a trier of fact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a genuine issue of material fact on whether diving head first was an open/obvious danger | Sholer presented evidence of deceptive lighting and lack of clear depth indicators creating latent danger | Open and obvious danger; no duty to protect invitee | Issue for the trier of fact; summary judgment improper |
| Did the pool hazard implicate duty analysis (trespasser/licensee/invitee) so as to bar summary judgment | Duty exists to exercise reasonable care for invitees regarding hidden dangers | Open/obvious danger relieves owner of duty | Questions of duty and hazard openness are for the trier of fact; summary judgment inappropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Phelps v. Hotel Management, Inc., 925 P.2d 891 (Okla. 1996) (summary adjudication standard; open/obvious hazards require fact questions)
- Pickens v. Tulsa Metropolitan Ministry, 951 P.2d 1079 (Okla. 1997) (duty and open/obvious analysis for premises liability)
- Brown v. Nicholson, Pate, & Spears, 935 P.2d 319 (Okla. 1997) (duty to disclose known hazards to licensees/invitees)
- Henryetta Constr. Co. v. Harris, 408 P.2d 522 (Okla. 1965) (duty owed to disclose dangerous defects; open/obvious considerations)
- Roper v. Mercy Health Center, 903 P.2d 314 (Okla. 1995) (open and obvious doctrine; fact questions for trier of fact)
- Spirgis v. Circle K Stores, Inc., 743 P.2d 682 (Okla. Civ. App. 1987) (open/obvious or deceptively safe interpretations; fact questions)
- Zagal v. Truckstops Corp. of America, 948 P.2d 273 (Okla. 1997) (observability and hidden dangers; summary judgment questions)
- Jack Healey Linen Service Co. v. Travis, 434 P.2d 924 (Okla. 1967) (observable vs hidden hazards; fact questions on duty)
- Miller v. David Grace, Inc., 212 P.3d 1223 (Okla. 2009) (open/obvious danger analysis; fact question for trial)