finding whether a danger is open and obvious may be a question for a jury and reaffirming the rule that there is no duty to warn of an open-and-obvious danger
How later courts described this case
- finding whether a danger is open and obvious may be a question for a jury and reaffirming the rule that there is no duty to warn of an open-and-obvious danger
- “[I]t is well established in our jurisprudence that, where conflicting evidence is presented on the issue of the open and obvious nature of a defect, the question must be resolved by the trier of fact.” (emphasis omitted)
- “Whether a defect is open or obvious … presents a question for the trier of fact.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
TAYLOR, C.J.,
with whom WINCHESTER, J. joins,
dissenting:
I dissent. The trial court and the Court of Civil Appeals were correct and I would affirm their decisions. This case was properly ended by summary judgment. An intoxicated young woman decided to dive head first into a shallow swimming pool. A few feet from her dive was a marker clearly indicating the water was only three (8) feet deep. She admits that was a dangerous act on her part. The danger of diving into water of unknown depth is open and obvious. The combination of being under the influence of alcohol and diving head first into very shallow water will usually result in unfortunate serious injury. However unfortunate, this injury is not the legal responsibility of the apartment complex.