WOOD v. MERCEDES-BENZ OF OKLAHOMA CITY
336 P.3d 457
Okla.2014Background
- Erica Wood, an employee of a catering company, slipped and fell on ice covering grass, sidewalks, and pavement around Mercedes‑Benz of Oklahoma City while at the dealership to cater an event.
- The ice resulted from the dealership's sprinkler system which activated during freezing temperatures the night before.
- Wood observed the ice upon arrival, entered the building, could not find her supervisor, and retraced her path to get a phone when she slipped and was injured.
- An employee of the dealership later acknowledged they should have put down salt.
- Mercedes‑Benz moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted it and the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed, holding summary judgment was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of duty in premises‑liability for ice created by owner | Wood: sprinkler‑caused ice is not a natural condition; Mercedes owed a duty to remedy or warn invitees | Mercedes: icy condition was open and obvious; no duty to warn or protect | Court: duty existed because owner’s system created/caused the hazard and it was foreseeable that caterers would encounter it |
| Applicability of open‑and‑obvious doctrine | Wood: doctrine does not bar liability where owner created or enhanced hazard | Mercedes: open‑and‑obvious hazard negates duty and supports summary judgment | Court: open‑and‑obvious defense is not absolute; in these facts it did not preclude duty because the hazard was created by defendant and foreseeable to harm invitees performing work for dealer |
| Foreseeability as determinant of duty | Wood: dealer knew employees would arrive for event and could foresee injury | Mercedes: foreseeability insufficient when hazard is obvious and avoidable | Court: foreseeability is central; because dealer’s actions caused hazard and it knew who would come, duty arises |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment | Wood: factual dispute exists about breach and causation precluding summary judgment | Mercedes: facts undisputed and law supports judgment as a matter of law | Court: material fact questions remain regarding breach/causation; summary judgment improper and case remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Krokowski v. Henderson Nat. Corp., 917 P.2d 8 (1996 OK 57) (owner‑created or enhanced ice can impose duty; factual dispute precludes summary judgment)
- Buck v. Del City Apartments, Inc., 431 P.2d 360 (1967 OK 81) (open‑and‑obvious natural hazards generally impose no duty to warn)
- Brown v. Alliance Real Estate Group, 976 P.2d 1043 (1999 OK 7) (owner may have duty where nonobvious ice caused injury and owner had prior notice)
- Scott v. Archon Group, L.P., 191 P.3d 1207 (2008 OK 45) (recitation of entrant status duties and limits of open‑and‑obvious doctrine)
- Weldon v. Dunn, 962 P.2d 1273 (1998 OK 80) (foreseeability is central to existence and scope of duty)