Emanuel Paul Griffith v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that attendant special aspects can negate the open and obvious doctrine defense
• applying the open and obvious danger doctrine, which does not apply to a general contractor claim, to a premises liability claim against contractors in possession of the property
• “[P]laintiff was indeed warned of the cable; he could see it, and he could have easily avoided it by simply stepping over it.”
• “A condition of the land is open and obvious when it is reasonable to expect that an average person with ordinary intelligence would have discovered it upon casual inspection.”
• “Generally, for a party to be subject to premises liability in favor of persons coming on the land, the party must possess and control the property at issue but not necessarily be its owner.”
• “Special aspects exist and impose a duty of care to protect those lawfully on the premises even if a hazard is open and obvious when the condition is effectively unavoidable or imposes an unreasonably high risk of severe harm.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).