Court Opinion

ID: 9749191
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 16:27:08.854209+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:44.848455
License: Public Domain

SCHRODER, J.,
dissenting:
Because I believe the open and obvious doctrine concerns a question of duty, I respectfully dissent. The other hospitals McIntosh served had no curbs to trip over. Appellants had a curb, which contained no building code or OSHA violations, and was open and obvious. It appears the Appellants are being held liable for a breach of a duty: a duty to build its emergency entrance like other hospitals in an undefined area. Until this decision, there was no such duty. Until today, a landowner or possessor of land could not be held liable to invitees who were injured by open and obvious dangers. Now, even though the alleged danger is open and obvious (like snow or ice on a sidewalk), if the possessor can anticipate the harm to an invitee, the possessor has a duty to fix the condition, or to somehow give additional warnings. In this case, to avoid future liability, the hospital will need to build the same type of entrance ramp as some unknown group of hospitals. This is an unwise and unneces-saiy change in the law in the Commonwealth.
SCOTT, J., joins.