Opinion ID: 1787959
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 18

Heading: Open and Obvious Danger

Text: To show that the City breached its specialized standard of care, Aguallo also needed to show that the City should have expected that a lawful visitor such as Aguallo either (1) would not discover or realize the danger or (2) would fail to protect herself against the danger. The City argues that the court made an express ruling that Aguallo failed to prove this element of the specialized standard of care. It relies on the following comments made by the court after closing arguments: Now on the law, I don't agree with counsel for both parties that NJI 8.22 [i.e., the specialized standard of care] determines the law of this case because if it does, the plaintiff loses. There's no question that the plaintiff cannot prove the elements because the plaintiff cannot prove that the defendant should have expected that a one-inch hole would be something that people would not discover or realize the danger. It can't be proved. So if that was the standard, I think I would findI know that I would find that the plaintiff didn't prove what they have to prove to show negligence, but I don't think 8.22 applies, I never have. (Emphasis supplied.) Generally, when the danger posed by a condition is open and obvious, the owner or occupier is not liable for harm caused by the condition. See Tichenor v. Lohaus, 212 Neb. 218, 322 N.W.2d 629 (1982). However, [d]espite the fact that the danger may be open and obvious or known, the possessor of the land may owe the duty if he should expect that the [lawful visitor] will fail to protect himself against the hazard. Id. at 222, 322 N.W.2d at 632. See, also, Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343 A (1965). As the comments to the Restatement explain: There are, however, cases in which the possessor of land can and should anticipate that the dangerous condition will cause physical harm to the invitee notwithstanding its known or obvious danger. In such cases the possessor is not relieved of the duty of reasonable care which he owes to the invitee for his protection. This duty may require him to warn the invitee, or to take other reasonable steps to protect him, against the known or obvious condition or activity, if the possessor has reason to expect that the invitee will nevertheless suffer physical harm. Such reason to expect harm to the visitor from known or obvious dangers may arise, for example, where the possessor has reason to expect that the invitee's attention may be distracted, so that he will not discover what is obvious, or will forget what he has discovered, or fail to protect himself against it. Restatement, supra, comment f. at 220. See Burns v. Veterans of Foreign Wars, 231 Neb. 844, 438 N.W.2d 485 (1989). Assuming, without deciding, that the trial court's comments following the trial constitute findings of fact, the court's analysis of the open and obvious danger rule was incomplete. Although it determined that the danger was open and obvious, it did not decide whether the City should have anticipated that persons, such as Aguallo, would fail to protect themselves despite the open and obvious risk. Our case law requires this analysis. See, Burns v. Veterans of Foreign Wars, supra ; Carnes v. Weesner, 229 Neb. 641, 428 N.W.2d 493 (1988). Further, the evidence presented at trial shows that whether the City should have anticipated that persons such as Aguallo would fail to protect themselves despite the open and obvious risk was a disputed question. Aguallo presented evidence showing that the lot was meant to provide parking for those shopping and working in downtown Scottsbluff. A reasonable fact finder could conclude that the City should have anticipated that the users of the parking lot would fail to protect themselves from the erosion because they might have forgotten about it while shopping or at work, or because they were distracted by items they were carrying. Cf., Burns v. Veterans of Foreign Wars, supra ; Restatement, supra, illustration 4. In addition, the fall occurred at night and Aguallo presented evidence showing that the lighting in the parking lot was of questionable quality. Thus, a fact finder could also reasonably conclude that the City should have anticipated that persons using the parking lot would fail to protect themselves because the poor lighting did not illuminate the eroded area. Given that the trial court did not resolve whether the City should have anticipated that persons, such as Aguallo, would fail to protect themselves despite the open and obvious nature of the risk, we will not do so on appeal.