holding that the duty a landlord owes its tenants extends to the tenant’s guests
How later courts described this case
- holding that the duty a landlord owes its tenants extends to the tenant’s guests
- holding that something being open and obvious does not necessarily preclude recovery, nor should it be “confused with plaintiff's initial and separate burden to prove knowledge of danger on the part of the owner”
- stating that the `no-duty' rule/open and obvious danger doctrine was incompatible with the state's comparative negligence statute, and the doctrine was only relevant to plaintiff's contributory negligence
- explaining that “the duty that the landlord owed to [the tenants] extended to their guest”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Limited by Kathy Houston v. Northwest Village, LTD., and Medlock Southwest Management Corporation (2003)
Although the Parker opinion says that the Court then limited its holding to invitees
The opinion
McGEE, Justice,
concurring.
I agree with the opinion, but I would add that there should be no instruction to the *522 jury concerning an open and obvious situation since that is a factual matter that bears upon a plaintiff’s conduct (his contributory negligence) after he has knowledge or is charged with knowledge. Such an instruction would amount to a comment upon the weight of the evidence. I would also add that there should be no instruction concerning knowledge or “no-duty,” since a plaintiff’s conduct after he possesses knowledge bears upon the reasonableness of his conduct under the circumstances.