Court Opinion

ID: 9790747
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:59:04.114161+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:31.352513
License: Public Domain

SIMMS, Justice,
dissenting:
I must respectfully dissent. In my view, the majority erroneously finds Spirgis v. Circle K Stores, Inc., 743 P.2d 682 (Okla.App.1987) is controlling in this case.
The point of the Spirgis opinion is set forth in its opening paragraph: “The central question in this appeal is whether District Court Rule 4(e), 12 O.S.Supp.1986, ch. 2, app, requires that summary judgment be granted to a movant when the opposing party does not file a brief in opposition. We hold that it does not and reverse.” The treatment in the opinion of open and obvious premises defects is pure dicta. Unfortunately, this Court gave precedential effect to the procedural aspect of the case and at the same time, unwittingly approved an erroneous view of premises liability regarding open and obvious defects.
In Spirgis, the appeals court in reversing the trial court’s sustention of summary judgment, wrote by way of dicta: “Thus, the facts before the (trial) court do not conclusively demonstrate the obvious nature of the defect.”
In the case at bar, the alleged defect was more than six inches above the sidewalk and the light(s) over which appellant allegedly tripped were evenly spaced at intervals of twenty feet along the center of the walkway. Their color contrasted visibly from the color of the sidewalk. Any pedestrian traffic would of necessity be required to step around or over the hght(s) or simply pass them by. Plaintiff says the sun was in her eyes. Surely, we do not hold Mercy responsible for the varying angles of the sun and it’s degrees of intensity.
I agree with the Court of Appeals when, in the case at bar, they wrote: ‘We must conclude that reasonable men could not differ as to whether the defect was open and obvious, and the trial court’s decision must therefore be affirmed. See: Weeks v. Wedgewood Village, 554 P.2d 780 (Okla.1976).”
As a matter of law, premises liability will not attach for an open, obvious, and unconcealed defect, and there was no duty on Mercy to warn plaintiff. A close reading of Spirgis does not convince me to the contrary. I would deny the writ of certiorari.
I am authorized to state that Justice HODGES and Justice HARGRAVE join me in the views expressed herein.