Opinion ID: 1102925
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Open and Obvious Condition

Text: Bruno's and Brown's Cleaning both argue that if Williams's testimony concerning the strips is taken as true, then Bruno's and Brown's Cleaning were still entitled to a summary judgment, because, they say, the strips were open and obvious and Williams was therefore contributorily negligent in slipping on them. The defendants argue that in his deposition Williams admitted that the strips were open and obvious: Q. [Defense attorney] And when you turned around and started to walk up that aisle, why didn't you see those strips on the floor? ... A. I wasn't looking on the floor. I was in there to shop. Q. Okay. You weren't looking where you were going, were you? [Plaintiff's attorney] Object. Q. Is that right? A. I would say, yeah. Q. You'd say that's right? A. No. I was looking where I was going. Q. Well, if you were looking where you were going, why didn't you see the strips on the floor? [Plaintiff's attorney] Object. Q. Huh? A. I don't go into grocery stores hunting shelves on the floor. I mean, if it's a big counter or something set thereI've never fell nowhere before. We first note that questions of contributory negligence, assumption of the risk, and whether the plaintiff should have been aware of the defect, are normally questions for the jury. Bogue, 553 So.2d at 547. Although there is no duty to warn of open and obvious defects which the injured party should be aware of in the exercise of reasonable care, Owens v. National Security of Alabama, Inc., 454 So.2d 1387, 1389 (Ala. 1984), we hold that Williams's testimony quoted above does not establish that the strips were an open and obvious condition. One could reasonably infer from that testimony that Williams was focusing his attention on the shelves, not that he was not looking where he was going. Nowhere in Williams's testimony does he say that the strips were obvious to him before he fell; in fact, Williams stated that he did not see the strips until after he fell. Although we hold that Williams presented substantial evidence to support the submission of his negligence claims to a jury, Williams has not argued on appeal that his wantonness claims should have been submitted to a jury. That argument is therefore waived. That portion of the summary judgment holding for Bruno's and Brown's Cleaning on the negligence claim is reversed, but that portion in favor of Bruno's and Brown's Cleaning on the wantonness claim is affirmed. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED. HORNSBY, C.J., and MADDOX, KENNEDY and COOK, JJ., concur.