Case Title: McFarland v. Kahn

Citation: 123 Ariz. 62, 597 P.2d 544

Docket Number: 14197-PR

State: arizona

Court: Arizona Supreme Court

Date: 1979-07-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
123 Ariz. 62 (1979) 597 P.2d 544 Jimmy L. McFARLAND, Sr., and Joann McFarland, husband and wife, and Jimmy L. McFarland, Jr., by his father and Guardian ad Litem, Jimmy L. McFarland, Sr., Appellants, v. Michael P. KAHN and Robert E. Rhinesmith, Partners d/b/a Michael & Associates, and Michael & Associates, an Arizona Partnership, Appellees. No. 14197-PR. Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc. July 5, 1979. Philip Jones, Tucson, for appellants. Murphy & Hazlett by Scott Goering, Tucson, for appellees. STRUCKMEYER, Vice Chief Justice. This is an action for personal injury to a minor child. The Superior Court directed a verdict in favor of the defendant landlord and this appeal followed. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. We accepted review. Opinion of the Court of Appeals, (App. 1979), vacated. Judgment of the Superior Court affirmed. While playing tag football on the common lawn of the apartment complex in which he resided, twelve-year-old Jimmy McFarland, Jr. tripped on a lawn sprinkler head and fell, sustaining a two-inch laceration immediately below his left knee. Plaintiffs filed this action alleging that he tripped over the sprinkler head because of the negligent maintenance of the common area. This case is controlled by the decision of this Court in Cummings v. Prater, 95 Ariz. 20, 386 P.2d 27 (1963). There, a tenant tripped on a stone slab which was several inches higher than the path leading to garbage cans in an alley. She had not examined the premises carefully and had no previous knowledge of the existence of the slab. We said: We also said: We quoted from Harper and James, § 27.13, that: In Cummings v. Prater we held that the photographs clearly portrayed the condition of the premises and the position of the slabs and that the photographs showed proven physical facts that the slabs were of the same type, placed in the same manner, and were in the same condition as are thousands of stepping stones in the community. We said: In the present case, the plaintiff, Jimmy McFarland, testified: The photograph, Plaintiff's Exhibit 3A, plainly shows that the sprinkler head was open and obvious. As such, it was a condition of the premises which was not unreasonably dangerous. Open and obvious sprinkler heads are not conditions which normally are likely to cause harm to others. Judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed. CAMERON, C.J., and HAYS, HOLOHAN and GORDON, JJ., concur.