New Mexico Supreme Court· 1/8/1992

Klopp v. Wackenhut Corp.

Citations

824 P.2d 293
113 N.M. 153

How courts have described this case

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

holding that an occupier of a premises of public accommodation must safeguard invitees from dangers reasonably foreseeable
holding that it is for the jury to decide in virtually every case whether a dangerous condition on the premises involved an unreasonable risk of danger and whether the occupier should reasonably anticipate that the visitor will not discover or realize the “obvious” danger
holding that it is for the jury to decide in virtually every case whether a dangerous condition on the premises involved an unreasonable risk of danger and whether the occupier should reasonably anticipate that the visitor will not discover or realize the \obvious\ danger
holding negligence is an issue to be “decided by the jury whenever reasonable minds may differ”
noting that where a party “for the most part has directed her argument” to a specific point, the Court elected not to consider other matters “[without the benefit and guidance of briefing”
holding “open and obvious danger” rule to be inconsistent with pure comparative negligence system

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Ransom, Baca, Franchini

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

46 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

37 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.