Question

A homeowner lived in a house on a large corner lot located a few hundred feet from a convenience store that was frequented by many people in the neighborhood. Everyone took a shortcut across the homeowner's front yard rather than staying on the sidewalk that bordered her lawn. The heavy foot traffic wore a path through her lawn, and people left soft drink cans and candy wrappers strewn all over her front yard. Fed up, the homeowner hired a local contractor to build a fence around her front lawn. The next afternoon, the contractor started the job by surveying the property and digging post holes, but left to do another small job in that area. He left behind a wheelbarrow with a shovel leaning against it. After noticing the items, the homeowner called the contractor's office and spoke to his wife. The contractor's wife said that he was on another job in the area and would pick up the wheelbarrow and shovel on his way back, but he never did.

A neighbor who was walking to the convenience store to pick up a six-pack of beer after work took his usual shortcut when he came to the neighbor's corner. As he was walking by the wheelbarrow, a police car with siren wailing went by on the main street, distracting him. As he followed the police car with his eyes, he tripped over the shovel leaning against the wheelbarrow and fell, breaking his arm.
Is the homeowner liable to the neighbor for his broken arm and related damages?
A) No, because she did not create the condition that harmed him.
B) No, because the danger to which he was exposed was open and obvious.
C) Yes, because she was aware of the condition that harmed him.
D) Yes, because she knew that he frequently cut across her lawn on the way to the convenience store.

Answer 1

The homeowner is not liable for the neighbor's damaged arm since the hazard - the wheelbarrow and shovel - was open and obviously placed, thereby expected to be seen and avoided.

Step-by-step explanation:

In this case, the correct answer would be B) No, because the danger to which he was exposed was open and obvious. The theory of premises liability states that landowners may be held responsible for injuries that happen on their property, particularly if the landowner created the dangerous condition, knew it existed, or should have known about it and failed to correct it. However, the open and obvious defense to premises liability holds that if a certain hazard was so open and obvious that a reasonable person would have seen it and avoided it, then the landowner may not be held responsible for injuries sustained from that hazard. Here, the wheelbarrow and shovel were open and obvious hazards that a reasonable person would have taken care to avoid, especially since they were right off the beaten path.

Learn more about Premises Liability