Trip & fall in a store; Premises liability; Benton v. Dart Props., Inc.; Duty; Moning v. Alfono; Hoffner v. Lanctoe; Breach; Boumelhem v. Bic Corp.; Distinguishing claims arising from ordinary negligence & claims premised on a condition of the land; Lymon v. Freedland; Whether a danger is open & obvious; Kennedy v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co.; Lugo v. Ameritech Corp., Inc.

The court held that the trial court did not err by granting summary disposition for defendant in plaintiff’s premises liability action. Plaintiff sued defendant for injuries she sustained when she tripped on a “clear and/or translucent polyester strapping band” that was on the floor near a cash register in the store. The trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition, finding that there was no question of material fact that the plastic strip was an open and obvious condition. On appeal, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that a question of fact existed as to whether the plastic strip on the store’s floor was an open and obvious hazard. “Applying the objective standard, which calls for an examination of the ‘objective nature of the conditions of the premises at issue,’ and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the plastic strip was open and obvious.” Applying Kennedy, it concluded that the “potential hazard presented by the plastic strip could have been observed by an average person of ordinary intelligence upon casual inspection.” Because the condition was “open and obvious, the trial court correctly held that defendant had no duty to warn of or protect plaintiff from the potential hazard of the plastic strip on the floor.” Finally, because the court concluded that the plastic strip was an open and obvious condition, it declined “to reach plaintiff’s contention that defendant had notice of the hazard and therefore a duty to warn, which is relevant only if the plastic strip had not been open and obvious.” Affirmed.