WOOD v. MERCEDES-BENZ OF OKLAHOMA CITY
336 P.3d 457
| Okla. | 2014Background
- Erica Wood, a caterer for Ned's Catering, arrived at Mercedes‑Benz of Oklahoma City for an event and observed ice covering grass, sidewalks, and entrances created when the dealership's sprinkler system activated during freezing temperatures.
- Wood first walked across the ice into the building, could not find her supervisor, and returned to her car to retrieve a cell phone; on the return trip she slipped on the icy incline and was injured.
- Wood sued Mercedes‑Benz for negligence in premises liability; Mercedes‑Benz moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Mercedes‑Benz; the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, relying on the open‑and‑obvious doctrine.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari, reversed the trial court, vacated the Court of Civil Appeals, and remanded, holding Mercedes‑Benz owed a duty because the sprinkler system created the hazardous accumulation of ice and the dealer knew caterers would have to traverse the area.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether owner owed a duty when ice was open and obvious | Wood: duty existed because the dealership created/enhanced the ice hazard (sprinklers) and knew caterers would be exposed | Mercedes‑Benz: no duty — ice was an open, obvious danger and Wood knowingly traversed it | Court: duty existed here because the owner’s sprinkler caused the accumulation and it was foreseeable invitees (caterers) would encounter it |
| Whether creation/enhancement of ice by owner removes open‑and‑obvious bar | Wood: owner‑caused accumulation defeats automatic application of open‑and‑obvious rule | Mercedes‑Benz: owner causation irrelevant if hazard was observable and known to plaintiff | Court: owner‑created or enhanced hazardous accumulation can impose duty; factual dispute precluded summary judgment |
| Relevance of plaintiff’s awareness and choice to traverse the hazard | Wood: even though she saw ice, she was compelled to cross in furtherance of the dealership’s event | Mercedes‑Benz: Wood knew the risk and voluntarily re‑crossed; thus no duty or liability | Court: awareness does not automatically eliminate duty when owner created the hazardous condition and exposure was foreseeable; issue for jury whether duty breached |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment | Wood: disputes of material fact exist regarding breach and causation | Mercedes‑Benz: facts undisputed and open‑and‑obvious doctrine entitles defendant to judgment as a matter of law | Court: summary judgment improper because reasonable jurors could differ on duty/breach given owner‑created ice and foreseeability |
Key Cases Cited
- Krokowski v. Henderson Nat. Corp., 917 P.2d 8 (Okla. 1996) (owner‑created or enhanced ice may give rise to duty; material fact issue defeats summary judgment)
- Brown v. Alliance Real Estate Group, 976 P.2d 1043 (Okla. 1999) (owner has duty when circumstances make injury foreseeable and the hazard is non‑obvious or owner had notice)
- Weldon v. Dunn, 962 P.2d 1273 (Okla. 1998) (foreseeability is central to existence and scope of duty in negligence)
- Buck v. Del City Apartments, 431 P.2d 360 (Okla. 1967) (longstanding articulation of open‑and‑obvious doctrine: no duty to warn against hazards that are patent and known or should be known)