Sorry, I had to hurry on the last post; my boss was stopping by my desk for “daily transaction report”…
I’m just not expressing myself correctly and I’m sorry. If the OPEN & OBVIOUS (liability loophole) is allowed to prevail, there would be no need, in fact, one shouldn’t strive to “protect or prevent” those potentially injurious exposures which are, indeed: OPEN & OBVIOUS, because, if we attempt to mitigate what is OPEN & OBVIOUS, we are “hiding the fact” and INCREASING OUR LIABILITY!
So… I say, DON’T put up that RAILING on the upper floors of the hotel building because it is already OPEN & OBVIOUS that a person/patron walking to their “upper floor” room would absolutely know that, if he/she got too close to the edge of the “un railed” upper floor walkway, they could fall off TO THEIR DEATH.
And, if that did happen, the hotel’s attorney could site, as viable defense, that the patron should have known that walking to the edge of the non railed walkway, while on the third floor, could cause acrophobia induced vertigo leading to the fall and death of the patron. The patron, or any reasonable person, would certainly have know that an “un railed” upper floor walkway is an OPEN & OBVIOUS hazard. CASE DISMISSED!
Additionally, for you folks in the INSURANCE business… Can’t you see that if this “open & obvious” defense becomes widespread, WHO NEEDS LIABILITY INSURANCE? All of the most hazardous conditions are GENERALLY OPEN & OBVIOUS and, apparently as this article presents, NOT A LIABILITY EXPOSURE.
The hotel is paying TWICE the PRICE for HALF the exposure. Time for an INSURANCE REFUND.
Well, I guess that means the SECOND and higher floor “exterior walkways or balconies” of a hotel or condo, etc… need not have some sort of barricade, of certain height and opening width, to prevent a patron/invitee from FALLING TO THEIR DEATH, BECAUSE, the “hazard” is certainly “open & obvious” to any reasonable preson that one can fall off of an “unprotected”/”code violating” balcony or exterior walkway… to their death!
Does this mean a driver that “runs a red light” and kills me can’t be sued by my survivors because the hazard of crossing the road in the path of a speading car, even if it had a stop light, was “open & obvious” to me?
Well lets see Omnisure…would you walk across a walkway or stand on the edge of a balcony without a barricade? If you see the steps and you know you are carrying oxygen and are slightly feeble on your pins….uh, let’s see. Oh, how about we stay somewhere else tonight dear. For goodness sake, no one held a gun to their head to stay in that motel. Good Grief.
If you go out on a balcony and go to the edge that doesn’t have a railing, you have more negligence in your injury than anyone else. Could you not tell that there was no railing? The running of a red light is a completely different scenario. A car running a red light is not an open and obvious hazard. The mere presence of a building code violation does not alone create negligence.
Hey Guy’s & Gall’s…
Open & Obvious is a GREY AREA that can certainly be EXPOLITED by the “unconcerned”. Look, my mama always tought me to “look both ways” before crossing the road. Everybody knows you don’t just walk out into the road, BECAUSE IT IS OPENLY OBVIOUS that a car COULD be bearing down on me and kill me. That basic premise is OPEN & OBVIOUS to EVERYONE with a BRAIN which precludes responsibility because I SHOULD HAVE KNOWN. I just don’t get it, unless, civily or via another “legal” avenue, there IS source for recompence to the injured party due to the hotel owners clean negligence is maintaining or trying to maintain a “safe” public area.
So, OmniSure, if you looked both ways and still stepped out in front of that car, you might be the one causing your own open & obvious injury or death. As for the hotel building, what were the codes in place at the time it was built? I don’t think a railing would have made one bit of difference where these people see big bucks lining their pockets.
Ominisure…..you should have quit while you were ahead. “open and obvious” is a long-standing defense and the court made the right call. Property owners have no responsibility to protect people against their own stupidity, carelessness, or accidents. As someone already pointed out, the old geezer didn’t have to attempt to navigate steps. Even if the steps were built to code, that doesn’t guarantee he wouldn’t have fallen anyway. There is a duty to protect from “known hazards” and these steps don’t meet that standard becasue the majority of people don’t fall. Sometimes “_hit happens” and the injured party doesn’t collect. Deal with it.
Both the concurring opinion and the dissent understand that “open and obvious” acts as a complete bar. However, only the dissent notes that the majority ruling is judicial legislation, where the court is making the law after the legislature abandoned contrib. negligence.
Under the law, the causes of the injury should have gone to the jury to allocate fault and apply the rules within the law.
Here the court took over the roles of both the legislature and the jury.
Ohio should review the qualifications of these justices.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Sorry, I had to hurry on the last post; my boss was stopping by my desk for “daily transaction report”…
I’m just not expressing myself correctly and I’m sorry. If the OPEN & OBVIOUS (liability loophole) is allowed to prevail, there would be no need, in fact, one shouldn’t strive to “protect or prevent” those potentially injurious exposures which are, indeed: OPEN & OBVIOUS, because, if we attempt to mitigate what is OPEN & OBVIOUS, we are “hiding the fact” and INCREASING OUR LIABILITY!
So… I say, DON’T put up that RAILING on the upper floors of the hotel building because it is already OPEN & OBVIOUS that a person/patron walking to their “upper floor” room would absolutely know that, if he/she got too close to the edge of the “un railed” upper floor walkway, they could fall off TO THEIR DEATH.
And, if that did happen, the hotel’s attorney could site, as viable defense, that the patron should have known that walking to the edge of the non railed walkway, while on the third floor, could cause acrophobia induced vertigo leading to the fall and death of the patron. The patron, or any reasonable person, would certainly have know that an “un railed” upper floor walkway is an OPEN & OBVIOUS hazard. CASE DISMISSED!
Additionally, for you folks in the INSURANCE business… Can’t you see that if this “open & obvious” defense becomes widespread, WHO NEEDS LIABILITY INSURANCE? All of the most hazardous conditions are GENERALLY OPEN & OBVIOUS and, apparently as this article presents, NOT A LIABILITY EXPOSURE.
The hotel is paying TWICE the PRICE for HALF the exposure. Time for an INSURANCE REFUND.
Well, I guess that means the SECOND and higher floor “exterior walkways or balconies” of a hotel or condo, etc… need not have some sort of barricade, of certain height and opening width, to prevent a patron/invitee from FALLING TO THEIR DEATH, BECAUSE, the “hazard” is certainly “open & obvious” to any reasonable preson that one can fall off of an “unprotected”/”code violating” balcony or exterior walkway… to their death!
Does this mean a driver that “runs a red light” and kills me can’t be sued by my survivors because the hazard of crossing the road in the path of a speading car, even if it had a stop light, was “open & obvious” to me?
help!
Well lets see Omnisure…would you walk across a walkway or stand on the edge of a balcony without a barricade? If you see the steps and you know you are carrying oxygen and are slightly feeble on your pins….uh, let’s see. Oh, how about we stay somewhere else tonight dear. For goodness sake, no one held a gun to their head to stay in that motel. Good Grief.
Yeah OmniSure…I don’t think your arguement makes any sense. Sorry!
If you go out on a balcony and go to the edge that doesn’t have a railing, you have more negligence in your injury than anyone else. Could you not tell that there was no railing? The running of a red light is a completely different scenario. A car running a red light is not an open and obvious hazard. The mere presence of a building code violation does not alone create negligence.
Hey Guy’s & Gall’s…
Open & Obvious is a GREY AREA that can certainly be EXPOLITED by the “unconcerned”. Look, my mama always tought me to “look both ways” before crossing the road. Everybody knows you don’t just walk out into the road, BECAUSE IT IS OPENLY OBVIOUS that a car COULD be bearing down on me and kill me. That basic premise is OPEN & OBVIOUS to EVERYONE with a BRAIN which precludes responsibility because I SHOULD HAVE KNOWN. I just don’t get it, unless, civily or via another “legal” avenue, there IS source for recompence to the injured party due to the hotel owners clean negligence is maintaining or trying to maintain a “safe” public area.
Look forward to more clearification…
Thanks,
How about some CLARIFICATION on your atrocious spelling, Mr. OmniSure?
So, OmniSure, if you looked both ways and still stepped out in front of that car, you might be the one causing your own open & obvious injury or death. As for the hotel building, what were the codes in place at the time it was built? I don’t think a railing would have made one bit of difference where these people see big bucks lining their pockets.
Ominisure…..you should have quit while you were ahead. “open and obvious” is a long-standing defense and the court made the right call. Property owners have no responsibility to protect people against their own stupidity, carelessness, or accidents. As someone already pointed out, the old geezer didn’t have to attempt to navigate steps. Even if the steps were built to code, that doesn’t guarantee he wouldn’t have fallen anyway. There is a duty to protect from “known hazards” and these steps don’t meet that standard becasue the majority of people don’t fall. Sometimes “_hit happens” and the injured party doesn’t collect. Deal with it.
Both the concurring opinion and the dissent understand that “open and obvious” acts as a complete bar. However, only the dissent notes that the majority ruling is judicial legislation, where the court is making the law after the legislature abandoned contrib. negligence.
Under the law, the causes of the injury should have gone to the jury to allocate fault and apply the rules within the law.
Here the court took over the roles of both the legislature and the jury.
Ohio should review the qualifications of these justices.