If you get hurt on someone else’s property, you might be able to claim compensation from them through a premises liability claim. However, in some cases, the property owner might cite the open and obvious doctrine to argue that they should not have to pay you because the hazard was so visible that you should have seen and avoided it.
The Tennessee Open and Obvious Defense Explained
Tennessee property owners have a responsibility to keep their premises reasonably safe for visitors. The duty includes fixing dangerous conditions or warning visitors about them when immediate repairs are not possible.
If an unsafe condition harms a visitor, the visitor may pursue a premises liability claim against the owner. The outcome of a premises liability claim often turns on whether the property owner should have foreseen the risk and taken additional steps to prevent accidents arising from it.
Sometimes, property owners defend themselves in these cases by asserting the open and obvious defense. The argument contends that the hazardous condition in question was so clear and noticeable that it should have been easy for the injured person to avoid it. However, the courts have ruled that a hazard’s visibility does not automatically protect a property owner from liability.
Instead, Tennessee courts look at whether the risk of harm was still foreseeable and whether the owner could and should have taken simple steps to prevent it. If the hazard posed a clear risk that outweighed the effort required to fix or warn the visitor about it, the open and obvious defense likely will not be effective.
When Property Owners Use the Defense
Property owners typically seek to use the Tennessee open and obvious doctrine in premises liability cases involving hazards that are easy to see, such as:
- Trip-and-fall incidents involving large floor displays or boxes left in plain sight in retail store aisles
- Accidents due to unsafe conditions at rental cabins in popular vacation areas
- Falls involving steps, ramps, or flooring transitions that are clearly marked or easy to see
- Injuries that involve barriers or construction areas marked with visible signs or caution tape
- Accidents involving glass doors with visible handles or markings at eye level
- Head injuries involving low-hanging signs, shelves, or fixtures that are easy to see and avoid
- Injuries involving recreational hazards, such as clearly shallow swimming pools
How the Open and Obvious Defense Affects Your Injury Claim
If a property owner successfully applies the open and obvious rule, it could influence how much compensation you may recover from your premises liability case. Tennessee’s comparative negligence law says that courts can reduce your payout based on your share of fault for an accident. If the court finds that you ignored a visible danger, your recovery may decrease by your percentage of fault.
However, if the property owner failed to exercise reasonable care by not fixing or warning about a clear hazard, they could still bear most or all of the liability. Our premises liability lawyers can review the facts, collect evidence, and argue that the owner’s failure to act outweighed any lack of care attributed to you. Such an approach could limit the impact of the open and obvious hazard defense and preserve your right to fair compensation.
Contact The Terry Law Firm for Help with Your Premises Liability Case
If a Tennessee property owner tries to use the open and obvious doctrine to limit your payout after an accident, The Terry Law Firm can help you push back. Contact us today for a free consultation to discuss your premises liability claim and learn how we can protect your interests.
