Mind Your Mats: Plaintiff’s testimony did not prove property condition was “open obvious as a matter of law”

The Missouri Court of Appeals, in Anslinger v. Christian Hospital Northeast-Northwest, No. ED111387, 2024 Mo. App. LEXIS 32, (Mo. App. E.D. Jan 23, 2024), recently released an opinion interpreting the open and obvious hazard defense. The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s testimony established that a wrinkled floor mat was an “open and obvious hazard” as a matter of law, thus entitling the defendant to a directed verdict. The defendant’s argument was based primarily the following exchange during the plaintiff’s cross examination at trial.

[Opposing Counsel:] You saw those mats as you were walking up to the vestibule . . . correct?

[Plaintiff:] Yes.

. . . .

[Opposing Counsel:] Had you been looking straight down, you would have seen this [fold in the mat] because this is open and obvious, right?

‍

[Plaintiff:] Yes.

‍

In holding that the plaintiff’s testimony was insufficient to establish the wrinkled floor mat was open and obvious as a matter of law and that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s request for a directed verdict, the Court analyzed prior cases that considered the “open and obvious hazard” issue. From its review of other cases, the Court of Appeals summarized an important principal regarding the “open and obvious danger” defense in a premises liability lawsuit:

[S]imply because a defendant presents evidence indicating a plaintiff could have seen an unobscured dangerous condition does not mean the condition is necessarily open and obvious as a matter of law.

So, business owners, mind your mats!