359 S.W.3d 545
Mo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Smith was injured outside The Calla-way Bank when she stepped on a coin-sized lava rock on the sidewalk on June 30, 2003.
- Rock debris was scattered on a landscaped sidewalk area adjacent to lava rocks; several rocks were on the sidewalk outside the planted area.
- Smith filed suit on June 30, 2008 asserting respondeat superior, negligence, and premises liability.
- Bank moved for summary judgment arguing the lava rocks were an open and obvious danger, precluding liability.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Bank; Smith appeals seeking trial on factual questions about openness and danger.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the lava rocks constituted an open and obvious dangerous condition as a matter of law. | Smith contends factual questions remain about openness and foreseeability. | Bank argues the condition was open and obvious and Bank had no duty. | No; genuine factual disputes precluded summary judgment. |
| Whether the Bank owed a duty to protect Smith given the condition’s openness and Smith’s awareness. | Smith argues prior knowledge does not determine duty; jury should decide. | Bank argues absence of duty because condition was open and obvious. | Issue for the jury; duty exists unless harm should have been anticipated despite openness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. Niehaus, 857 S.W.2d 222 (Mo.banc 1993) (duty and standard of care in negligence inquiry)
- Eide v. Midstate Oil Co., 895 S.W.2d 35 (Mo.App.1995) (invitee duty not defeated by invitee's knowledge of obvious danger)
- Landers v. Aldi, Inc., 153 F.3d 698 (8th Cir.Mo.1998) (open and obvious condition; federal case discussed for contrast)
- Doe v. Roman Catholic Diocese of St. Louis, 311 S.W.3d 818 (Mo.App.2010) (confirms not bound by federal decisions on duty; focus on Missouri standards)
- Hokanson v. Joplin Rendering Co., Inc., 509 S.W.2d 107 (Mo.1974) (open and obvious condition in a plant setting)
- Crow v. Kansas City Power & Light Co., 174 S.W.3d 523 (Mo.App.2005) (open and obvious condition distinguished from natural/large-scale hazards)
- Hopkins v. Sefton Fibre Can Co., 390 S.W.2d 907 (Mo.App.1965) (parking-lot hazard considerations in open/obvious analysis)