Low, Ball & Lynch’s
WEEKLY LAW RESUME
September
23, 2004 Issue
By: Raymond Coates
Duty - Sidewalk - Obvious Defect
Maria Martinez v. Chippewa
Enterprises, Inc.
Court of Appeal, Second District
(August 26, 2026)
An open and obvious condition on premises may either eliminate any duty of
care or constitute an affirmative defense to a claim of negligence. This
case addressed that issue.
Maria Martinez filed a complaint against Chippewa Enterprises, Inc.,
claiming she slipped and fell on water in a driveway in front of a
building. The water apparently was runoff from sprinklers. It was
undisputed that the plaintiff had seen the water on the driveway before she
walked in it.
Chippewa filed a motion for summary judgment alleging they had no duty to
warn plaintiff of the dangerous condition because it was open and
obvious. The trial court granted the motion, holding there was no duty
owed to the plaintiff.
The Court of Appeal reversed. The Court found the trial court's
decision to be legally incorrect. The Court stated the fact that the
hazard was open and obvious did not relieve the property owner of all possible
duty with respect to it. While the defendant argued that the obvious
appearance of the wet pavement relieved it from a duty to warn, the Court
stated that did not necessarily relieve the landowner from the duty to rectify
the condition. The Court stated the controlling principle is that, although
the obviousness of a danger may eliminate the duty to warn of its existence, if
it is foreseeable that the danger may cause injury despite the fact that it is
obvious, there may be a duty to remedy the danger. A breach of that duty
may form the basis for liability.
In this case, the trial court's analysis was incomplete. The trial
court determined there was no duty to warn because of the obvious nature of the
condition. The trial court did not determine whether the defendant was
relieved from the duty of eliminating the dangerous condition. This
involved a weighing of factors such as the foreseeability of harm, the
defendant's advance knowledge of the dangerous condition, and the burden of
discharging that duty.
The Court suggested that the obvious nature of the condition posed an issue
of comparative fault, but did not warrant relieving the defendant of the legal
burden of liability in this situation. The Court therefore felt it was
inappropriate to grant summary judgment. The judgment was reversed.
COMMENT
This opinion clarifies the use of the "open and obvious" defense
in sidewalk and premises conditions. While the open and obvious nature of
a condition may relieve a property owner of the duty to warn, it does not
necessarily relieve the property owner of liability for creating the condition
or allowing it to exist.
____
To order a printed version of this analysis,
or change your subscription information, reply to this transmission.
Information regarding this and other WEEKLY LAW RESUME TM articles is available from Raymond Coates at (650) 366-4000,
[email protected] or at WWW.LOWBALL.COM. The WEEKLY LAW RESUME TM is published fifty-two times a year, and is a
complimentary publication of LOW, BALL & LYNCH, Attorneys at Law, a
Professional Corporation, with offices in