Slip and fall obvious

Holding that the ramp on which the plaintiff fell constituted an open and obvious hazard, and there was also no genuine issue of material fact as to whether special aspects of the ramp created an unreasonably dangerous condition, the court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary disposition to defendants. Plaintiff argued that the trial court incorrectly ruled that the ramp on which she fell constituted an open and obvious hazard. Plaintiff further contended that if the hazard was open and obvious, special aspects made the condition unreasonably dangerous. The court has ruled that handicap ramps generally constitute open and obvious dangers. However, plaintiff cited the affidavit of Z to support her position. According to Z, the ramp did not comply with the MBC. Z specifically asserted that the ramp was steeper than specified by the MBC, the sides were not flared to allow proper drainage, and the whole ramp was painted instead of just the edges which would have made the ramp more noticeable and less slippery when wet. The court has ruled that a code violation is merely evidence of negligence, and "even when a hazardous condition results from a code violation, ‘[t]he critical inquiry is whether there is something unusual about [the alleged hazard] that gives rise to an unreasonable risk of harm.'" Were the court to accept that the ramp did not comply with the MBC, on casual inspection an average user of ordinary intelligence would nonetheless have noticed the alleged danger posed by the handicap ramp. Plaintiff testified that she had already walked up the ramp while on her way into The Salvation Army, so she had already observed the incline. Further, regardless whether water could accumulate on the ramp, plaintiff fell when the weather was clear and she did not testify that there was water on the ground. Thus, an average person, having recently walked on the ramp, would have been aware of the alleged danger it posed - the condition was open and obvious. Plaintiff claimed that, even if open and obvious, the ramp was unreasonably dangerous pursuant to Lugo. On the contrary, the alleged danger posed by the ramp was unlikely to cause a substantial risk of death or severe injury. Further, the ramp was clearly avoidable. Plaintiff admitted that she could have stepped off of the curb instead of walking down the ramp.