In Ricks, plaintiff drove his horse-drawn wagon onto defendant's property to unload fertilizer. His horse stepped on a nail in a plank covered by mud and water, resulting in the horse's death from lockjaw. Id. Plaintiff's reliance on Ricks is misplaced. First, the plaintiff in Ricks could prove when and where the injury occurred, unlike plaintiff in the present case who cannot show sufficient evidence of when and where he stepped on the tack. Here, we have no evidence that the general condition of defendant's premises was bad.
Ricks is distinguishable from the instant case.
Furthermore, a premises owner does not have to warn an invitee of apparent hazards or circumstances of which the invitee has equal or superior knowledge. A reasonable person should be observant to avoid injury from a known and obvious danger. In the case below, plaintiff stated he saw a worker vacuuming tacks. He should have used reasonable care at this point to avoid injury from this known danger, especially considering the neuropathy which prevented his feeling a tack penetrating his foot. Moreover, assuming defendant was found to be negligent, plaintiff's failure to use reasonable care in avoiding obvious dangers would constitute contributory negligence and would serve as a bar to recovery.