The “Open & Obvious” Defense In Alabama Premises Liability Cases
The legal theory of premises liability holds a property owner or business owner liable for injuries sustained on their property. One of the defenses that a property owner can assert in order to escape liability is to argue that the hazard which injured the plaintiff is “open and obvious: – that is, that the danger was so obvious that the injured person is at fault for not avoiding the hazard.
If you have been injured on another person’s property and the owner is arguing that the hazard was open and obvious, do not lose hope – a knowledgeable Birmingham personal injury attorney from Goldasich, Vick & Fulk may be able to find the weak points in such a defense. With the right legal assistance, you may be able to hold a negligent owner accountable.
Three Different Categories
First and foremost, premises liability cases must factor in the injured plaintiff’s relationship to the defendant. Plaintiffs in premises liability cases fall into one of three categories in Alabama – invitee, licensee, and trespasser. An invitee is someone who is present to conduct business with the owner (though not necessarily a monetary exchange) – examples include customers in shops or visitors to public museums. A licensee is present for business purposes of their own, and a trespasser is, as one might imagine, present without permission.
If there is an open and obvious hazard on a person’s land or premises, the owner must try to remedy it and warn an invitee of any hazards they know of or should know of – conversely, a licensee must be warned of any known hazards only. The only duties owed to a trespasser is to refrain from intentionally injuring them and to warn them if you have immediate, actual knowledge if they are in danger.
Obvious To A Reasonable Person
One important thing to be aware of with this type of case is that the “open and obvious” standard is an objective one, not a subjective one – that is, there is a clear definition in state jurisprudence. The Alabama Supreme Court clarified in Walter v. Branch Hays Farm SC et al. (2026) that while an owner owes a duty to exercise reasonable care to people who visit their premises, they cannot be liable for injuries sustained due to a danger which was made open and obvious to a reasonable person.
In Walter, the plaintiff tripped and fell outside a store in a ‘sidewalk construction zone,’ which was clearly marked with hazard tape, neon spray paint, and signs. She sued alleging ‘mismanagement of the construction zone,’ but the state Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendants because a reasonable person would have taken action to avoid the clearly marked safety hazard.
You Are Not Alone – We Are Here To Help
If you have been injured in a premises liability-related accident, it is important to know that the stakes are high – state law holds that if someone is found even 1 percent liable for their own injuries, they cannot recover damages. The Birmingham premises liability attorneys at Goldasich, Vick & Fulk have experience in these kinds of cases and are here to guide you through what can be a confusing and intimidating legal process. Call our office today at (205-731-2566) to schedule a consultation.
Source:
law.justia.com/cases/alabama/supreme-court/2026/sc-2025-0160.html
