Yeager v. Arconic Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating defendant city owed a duty to “keep its streets and sidewalks reasonably safe for travel by the public”
• deciding what duties a municipality owes to pedestrians on its roads
• stating that “the nature [or obvious character] of the obstruction . . . is not important to determine whether the City owed a duty to the pedestrian, but rather to determine whether the City breached the duty of reasonable care”
• rejecting the theory that the “open and obvious nature of the condition” ends the defendant’s duty to the plaintiff and stating that such conditions are relevant to both defendant’s negligence and plaintiff’s contributory negligence
• open and obvious condition did not end defendant’s duty of care but, instead, was relevant to question of negligence
• open and obvious condition did not end defendant's duty of care but, instead, was relevant to question of negligence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).