Appellant brought suit to recover damages for injuries that she sustained when she drove her automobile into and over a painted concrete curb. The curb divided two adjacent parking lots, one of which belonged to appellee Richardson and the other to appellee Cox. This appeal is from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of both appellees.
By appellant’s own testimony, even though her vision had been unobstructed, she never saw the curb over which she drove her car. However, appellant also testified that, had she in fact been looking for the curb, she probably would have seen it. “[Wjhere [an obstruction] is perfectly obvious and apparent, so that one looking ahead would necessarily see it, the fact that the plaintiff merely failed to look will not relieve him from the responsibility for his misadventure.”
Moore v. Kroger Co.,
The undisputed evidence shows that, for purely personal reasons, appellant became “distracted” by an event which was in no way connected with appellees. Because of this “distraction,” she voluntarily determined to exit the parking lot by a “short cut” which was entirely of her own choosing. She did this without so much as anticipating
*50
that, in so doing, she might encounter and should therefore guard against the possibility of running her car over a curb or other concrete divider. Compare
Bell v. Abercorn Toyota,
Judgment affirmed.