Klopp v. Wackenhut Corp.

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).