About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

64 Mo. L. Rev 1021 (1999)
Premises Liability: The Disappearance of the Open and Obvious Doctrine

handle is hein.journals/molr64 and id is 1031 raw text is: Premises Liability: The Disappearance of the Open and Obvious Doctrine Smith v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.' I. INTRODUCTION In the past, landowners were sovereign over their land, and they were immune from liability for accidents that occurred on their land.2 One doctrine that reflects this limited liability is the open and obvious rule, which states that landowners have no duty of care to protect someone on their premises from an open and obvious condition The traditional rule has recently been modified in many jurisdictions to disallow a landowner from asserting an open and obvious condition as a complete defense.4 The modified version holds occupiers liable if they reasonably could have anticipated that the invitee would encounter the danger despite the fact that it was open and obvious. Smith v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is consistent with Missouri's modified rule that an open and obvious condition is not a complete defense to a landowner's liability if the landowner could have anticipated that the invitee would still encounter the danger. However, the court in Smith failed to limit this rule to the narrow application intended by the Missouri Supreme Court.' II. FACTS AND HOLDING Elizabeth Smith brought a lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. for personal injuries under a premises liability theory.6 On July 18, 1994, Elizabeth Smith was entering Wal-Mart with her son, Andrew, when she slipped in a puddle of water that had accumulated in the vestibule entrance.7 The puddle resulted from Wal-Mart employees watering plants and shrubs in front of the store.8 The water ran across the parking lot, forcing customers to walk through the water and then track the water inside the store.9 Smith did not realize the 1. 967 S.W.2d 198 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998). 2. See infra note 26 and accompanying text. 3. See Ingram, infra note 26, at 241. 4. See discussion infra Part IIIB. 5. See discussion infra Part V. 6. Smith v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 967 S.W.2d 198, 202 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998). Her husband, Joel Smith, also brought suit against Wal-Mart for loss of consortium in the same action. Id. 7. Id. at 202-03. She was there to buy cleats for Andrew's football practice which began at 6:00 p.m. The accident occurred about an hour before the practice time. Id. 8. Id. at 203. 9. Id. at 203. Andrew tried to jump over the water but did not quite make it.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most