We use cookies to improve security, personalize the user experience,
enhance our marketing activities (including cooperating with our marketing partners) and for other
business use.
Click "here" to read our Cookie Policy.
By clicking "Accept" you agree to the use of cookies. Read less
Understanding the Open and Obvious Doctrine in Premises Liability Law
Definition & Meaning
The open and obvious doctrine is a legal principle primarily used in premises liability cases. This doctrine states that property owners (or possessors) are not liable for injuries sustained by invitees (people invited onto the property) if the dangers on the property are open and obvious. The rationale is that if a danger is apparent, the invitee is expected to recognize it and take precautions to avoid it. However, if the condition has special aspects that make it unreasonably dangerous, the property owner may still have a duty to protect invitees from harm.
Table of content
Legal Use & context
This doctrine is mainly applied in civil law, particularly in cases involving slip-and-fall accidents. It serves as a defense for property owners against claims of negligence. Users may find legal forms related to premises liability and injury claims through platforms like US Legal Forms, which can help them navigate the legal process effectively.
Key legal elements
Real-world examples
Here are a couple of examples of abatement:
(Hypothetical example) A person slips on a wet floor in a grocery store. If the wet floor sign is clearly visible, the store may not be liable for the injury under the open and obvious doctrine. However, if the floor is slippery due to a hidden hazard, the store may be required to take additional precautions.
Relevant laws & statutes
In Michigan, the open and obvious doctrine is influenced by case law such as Lugo v. Ameritech Corp., which established that property owners must take action if a condition is unreasonably dangerous despite being open and obvious. The Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 343A, also provides guidance on the liability of property owners regarding known or obvious dangers.
State-by-state differences
State
Application of Open and Obvious Doctrine
Michigan
Follows the special aspects analysis as established in Lugo v. Ameritech Corp.
California
Generally does not apply the open and obvious doctrine as strictly; focuses on the reasonable care standard.
New York
Similar to California, with a focus on whether the property owner took reasonable steps to address the hazard.
This is not a complete list. State laws vary, and users should consult local rules for specific guidance.
Comparison with related terms
Term
Definition
Negligence
Failure to exercise reasonable care, resulting in harm to another party.
Premises Liability
Legal responsibility of property owners for injuries occurring on their property.
Comparative Negligence
A legal doctrine that compares the negligence of both parties when determining liability.
Common misunderstandings
What to do if this term applies to you
If you believe you have been injured due to an open and obvious hazard, consider the following steps:
Document the scene and any visible hazards.
Seek medical attention for your injuries.
Consult with a legal professional to evaluate your case.
You may also explore US Legal Forms for templates related to premises liability claims.
Find the legal form that fits your case
Browse our library of 85,000+ state-specific legal templates.