Source: http://nicolsonlawgroup.com/news-a-events/retail-liability/140-dueling-duties-of-care-pennsylvania-courts-use-the-qknown-and-obvious-dangerq-doctrine-to-protect-store-owners-from-liability
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 00:17:21+00:00

Document:
Under Pennsylvania law, store owners owe their customers, “the highest duty owed to any entrant upon land.” Though high, this duty is not absolute. Owners are not insurers of their customers’ safety. As the invitees of owners, customers must also exercise their own duty of care and look where they are going. In Campisi v. Acme Markets, the Pennsylvania Superior Court established that a store owner had no duty to warn an invitee of the hazards created from the presence of a blind employee, if such hazards should have been known or obvious to the invitee. Campisi v. Acme Markets, Inc., 915 A.2d 117, 119 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006). This holding was recently affirmed by Graham v. Moran Foods, Inc. Graham v. Moran Foods, Inc., CIV.A. 11-239, 2012 WL 1808952 (E.D. Pa. May 18, 2012).
Graham v. Moran Foods, Inc. affirms Campisi v. Acme Markets, Inc.
In Graham, a customer tripped over a pallet and fell while grocery shopping at a Save–A–Lot store in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The customer had been walking towards the freezer to view sale items. To avoid collision with another shopper, the customer started to step backwards with her shopping cart. Before stepping backwards, the customer did not look to see if there were any obstacles in her way. After taking roughly four or five steps backwards, the customer tripped on a pallet on the floor. The customer had walked past the pallet on her way to the freezer.
The store owner filed a motion for summary judgment on the customer's negligence claim because the pallet created an open and obvious condition for which the store owner did not owe the customer a duty. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the store owner’s motion. In doing so, the court in Graham relied upon the 2006 Pennsylvania Superior Court opinion in Campisi v. Acme Markets for the proposition that grocery store customers must constantly be on alert when exiting a grocery store aisle. Similarly, the court in Graham held that customers must constantly remain alert for obvious obstacles.
In granting the store owner’s motion for summary judgment, the Graham district court reiterated an important component of the Campisi decision. Like the customer in Campisi, the customer in Graham asserted that sale displays distracted her attention from the floor. The court noted that customers are not relieved from their burden of exercising ordinary care because of a failure to observe and avoid an obvious condition by not looking before taking steps backwards. Distraction caused by store owners’ signs or displays is immaterial to customers’ duty of care. Such distractions will not excuse customer liability for injuries caused by knowing and obvious dangers.
Campisi v. Acme Markets was heralded as a victory for store owners and for their disabled employees. To date, this case maintains its status as a source of binding precedent, and it has been cited as legal authority in twenty three subsequent federal and state cases in Pennsylvania.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.