In New York premises liability cases, an “open and obvious hazard” is a dangerous condition that a reasonably careful person could see and avoid by paying attention. A property owner might claim that a hazardous condition was open and obvious as a defense in a slip-and-fall injury case.
Whether a slip-and-fall hazard on someone else’s property was open and obvious can be a critical issue. Depending on the circumstances, it could affect your ability to recover compensation for your injuries after a slip and fall. Those circumstances could include lighting, placement, distractions, and how the hazard appeared.
If you suffered severe injuries in a slip-and-fall accident on someone else’s property in New York, a premises liability lawyer at David Resnick & Associates, P.C., can explain how this distinction might impact your case.
What Is an “Open and Obvious Hazard” Under New York Law?
Under New York premises liability law, an “open and obvious hazard” is a dangerous condition on a property that a visitor could notice and avoid with reasonable care. Courts often apply the open and obvious doctrine in slip-and-fall cases to determine whether a property owner:
- Failed to warn visitors or
- Correct the dangerous condition.
Open and obvious dangers tend to be prominent and visible, located in places where most visitors would notice them. Examples include:
- Large puddles in plain view,
- Raised sidewalk slabs that stick out clearly
- Low but easily visible concrete barriers in parking lots.
If someone could have seen the hazard without effort and avoided it, the court may decide it was open and obvious. When making this determination, courts consider factors such as:
- Lighting
- Location
- Size
- Other distractions.
Just because a hazard was open and obvious does not mean the case ends there. New York law still requires property owners to ensure their property is reasonably safe for visitors. If a condition poses a hazard, the owner may still be liable for failing to correct it, even if it is open and obvious.
For this reason, you should consult an experienced personal injury attorney to learn about your rights and options for seeking compensation for your medical bills, lost wages, and the physical and emotional pain you have suffered.
Why Does It Matter If a Hazard Was an ‘Open and Obvious’ One?
“Open and obvious” designations matter in New York premises liability cases. Defendants often try to avoid responsibility for slip-and-falls by arguing that a hazard was open and obvious. If a court agrees, it may limit or even eliminate a property owner’s liability for the slip-and-fall. That’s why this issue often plays a key role in slip-and-fall claims.
In most cases, New York property owners must ensure that their property is reasonably safe for visitors. Still, the law doesn’t require them to warn visitors about hazards that they could easily see and avoid.
- If a property hazard is open and obvious, the court may find that the property owner had no duty to warn visitors about it.
- However, the property owner is not necessarily free from blame. The lawstill requires owners to address unsafe property conditions in some circumstances, even if those conditions are easy for visitors to spot.
- If a court finds that the injured person could have avoided the hazard by exercising reasonable care, it may reduce the property owner’s liability and the injured party’s compensation.
As you can see, the “open and obvious hazard” defense is a common way for defendants to shift blame. Whether it works depends on how visible the hazard was, how dangerous it was, and whether the injured person had a fair chance to avoid it by being careful.
What Are the Key Elements of an “Open and Obvious Hazard” in NY?
In New York premises liability cases, property owners often argue that the dangerous condition was an “open and obvious hazard” and that the visitor could have avoided it. This legal concept can affect whether the owner should have posted warnings or taken steps to fix the condition.
Courts don’t follow a one-size-fits-all rule when applying this concept. They consider several factors to determine whether the hazard was open and obvious under the law. These factors include the following:
Was the Hazard Readily Apparent?
The first indicator of an open and obvious hazard is its easy visibility. New York courts often use the phrase “readily observable” to describe this factor. If someone could have noticed the hazard with little effort, and nothing obstructed their view, the condition may meet this standard. For example:
- A large crack running across an otherwise clear sidewalk – This hazard could be “readily apparent” if a person could spot it just by looking down as they walked.
- A wide puddle on a sunny day – If the danger stands out and does not blend into the surroundings, it likely qualifies as open and obvious.
- A stack of boxes in a well-lit aisle – Unlike a puddle in the aisle, which a customer may not readily see, a stack of boxes would likely be an open and obvious obstacle.
However, even if a hazardous condition is visible, courts will consider the surroundings to determine whether it is open and obvious. Poor lighting, clutter, distractions, or crowded spaces can make an otherwise obvious hazard harder to spot. If the environment limits a visitor’s ability to see the danger, it may not be truly apparent.
Visibility alone doesn’t settle the issue. A court must also consider whether a person walking through the area would likely notice the hazard without needing to search for it.
It Would Be Visible by Ordinary Inspection
New York courts also consider whether an ordinary person would have seen the hazard during a normal walk-through. This issue is not the same as whether the condition would have been visible to someone who stopped and studied the ground carefully. Courts examine what someone would notice by simply walking through the area while paying attention, without special effort.
A hazard may meet this standard if a person could have seen it just by looking where they were going. For example:
- A step higher than usual at the entrance to a building – If a visitor walking up the stairs would naturally spot the step, the hazard may count as open and obvious.
- A low barrier in a parking lot – If nothing hid the barrier, and it fell in direct line of sight, it may be open and obvious.
Courts won’t always assume a person had a clear view in these situations. Judges may consider distractions in the area or the way the hazard blends into the surroundings. For example, a curb painted the same color as the sidewalk might not stand out, even if it’s in plain view. Courts will also weigh whether the visitor had the time and space to react once they saw the hazard.
This part of the test focuses on what a person would notice during an ordinary visit, not what they might see with extra caution or special effort.
Reasonable Person Standard
The “reasonable person” standard plays a central role in determining whether a hazard was open and obvious. Courts don’t just look at what the specific injured person saw. Instead, they consider what a reasonable person in the same situation would have noticed and done.
In this context, a “reasonable person” is not perfect, but they pay attention to where they walk and avoid clear dangers. If such a person had seen the condition and stepped around it, the court may consider the hazard open and obvious. For example:
- If someone trips over a large concrete barrier that’s sitting in a well-lit path, the court may find that a reasonable person would have seen and avoided it. On the other hand, if the barrier was hidden in shadow or situated near a visual distraction, the court may reach a different result.
This standard provides some fairness for property owners in premises liability cases. While property owners can’t ignore unsafe conditions just because most visitors should see them, they don’t necessarily have to post warnings for hazards that visitors would generally notice and avoid.
No Duty to Warn
When a hazard meets the open-and-obvious standard, the property owner may not have a legal duty to warn visitors of it. New York law does not require owners to post signs or issue warnings for dangers that most visitors would see and avoid on their own. If a reasonable person would have spotted and avoided the hazard, a court may find that no warning was required.
This rule applies to warnings only. Even if a property owner didn’t have to warn visitors about a hazard, they may still have a legal duty to fix it. The open-and-obvious label doesn’t relieve the property owner of their duty to keep their premises safe. If a hazard poses a clear risk of harm, the owner may still be legally responsible for failing to address it.
This distinction matters. The defense might argue that the owner had no duty at all because the danger was open and obvious. Still, a court may allow the case to proceed if the condition was dangerous, and the owner failed to fix it.
Each case depends on the complete set of facts, including:
- How dangerous the condition was
- How long had the condition been there
- What the owner did about it.
So, while the absence of a duty to warn can help the defense, it doesn’t shut the door on a premises liability claim.
What Are Common ‘Open and Obvious’ Hazards in NY?
If the court decides to treat a slip-and-fall hazard as “open and obvious,” it can decrease the property owner’s liability and the claimant’s payout. Here are some real-world examples that could fit the bill:
- An uneven sidewalk slab sticking up several inches – If a sidewalk defect is big and obvious, courts may find that people should see and avoid it without any warning.
- A low concrete barrier in a parking lot with no obstructions around it – If the barrier is clearly visible and nothing hides it from view, a judge might decide it doesn’t require a warning sign.
- A stair step with a clearly visible worn tread – If someone can see the wear and tear just by approaching the steps, the property owner might not have to post any warnings.
- An orange extension cord stretched across a bright, open floor – If the cord stands out, and people have room to walk around it, a court might call it open and obvious.
- A tall ladder or stock cart set up in the middle of a quiet store aisle – If the ladder or cart is large, clearly placed, and hard to miss, the property owner may not need to warn about it.
Who Decides If a Hazard Was ‘Open and Obvious’ in a New York Personal Injury Claim?
The court decides whether a hazard was open and obvious in a New York personal injury claim. The process of making this determination often starts when the property owner raises the issue early in the case. If this happens, the judge will review the facts and decide whether it is an issue for the jury. If the facts point clearly in one direction, a judge may rule on the issue as a matter of law. However, that usually happens only when the hazard is clearly visible and poses little risk.
Often, the court lets a jury decide whether a hazard was open and obvious. Jurors may hear testimony, review photos or video, and consider the setting where the fall happened. They’ll look at lighting, layout, distractions, and how the hazard appeared at the time of the fall. Then, jurors can decide whether a typical person would have noticed and avoided it. Small details determine how the court or jury views the hazard. So, offering strong, clear evidence is vital.
What Are Defenses to an ‘Open and Obvious Hazard’ Claim?
If a property owner tries to avoid responsibility by claiming that a slip-and-fall hazard was open and obvious, the injured party can respond with several arguments. The following examples focus on why the owner is still liable or why the hazard wasn’t as apparent as claimed:
- The hazard was dangerous even if visible – The condition posed a clear risk. So, the owner should have fixed it. Obvious hazards can still create liability if they present a genuine danger.
- The hazard blended into its surroundings – If the color, shape, lighting, or placement of the hazard made it challenging to see, the injured person may claim the hazard was not obvious.
- Lighting or crowding limited visibility – A claimant may argue that poor lighting, tight quarters, or distractions prevented them from obtaining a clear view of the hazard.
- There was no safe alternative route – If there was no clear way around, the person could argue they couldn’t avoid the hazard. Then, the owner could be liable for failing to provide a safe path for the visitor.
- The hazard changed or moved – A claimant might argue that a hazard changed or appeared suddenly. For example, if liquid spills just before a fall, it may not have been evident at the time.
If a Hazard Was ‘Open and Obvious,’ Could It Affect Your Compensation in a NYC Premises Liability Case?
An open-and-obvious finding can affect compensation in a NYC premises liability case. New York follows a comparative fault rule. The rule allows the court to reduce compensation if it finds that the injured party shared some responsibility for the incident.
If a jury decides the hazard was open and obvious, it may also conclude that the claimant could and should have avoided it. In that kind of situation, the jury may reduce the claimant’s payout based on their share of fault.
Still, just because a jury decides that a hazard was open and obvious doesn’t mean the injured party can’t recover anything. Courts have made clear that property owners must keep their premises reasonably safe. If the condition posed a real danger, the owner may still be liable, even if it was open and obvious.
A slip-and-fall lawyer at David Resnick & Associates, P.C., can argue for fair fault allocation and push back against attempts to place all blame on the injured person.
How Can an Experienced Premises Liability Attorney Help You?
If you’ve suffered a slip-and-fall injury on someone else’s property in New York, a premises liability attorney can guide you through the legal process and protect your right to seek compensation. These cases often require detailed evidence and strong legal arguments. A knowledgeable lawyer will:
- Collect evidence
- Deal with the insurance company
- Present a strong case on your behalf.
At David Resnick & Associates, P.C., our premises liability lawyers focus on helping New Yorkers pursue the support they need and deserve after serious injuries. Since opening our practice in 1998, we’ve recovered over $180 million in verdicts and settlements across New York City and Long Island, including many slip-and-fall payouts.
Attorney David Resnick founded the firm after witnessing firsthand how many large law firms fail to serve their clients. He created a law office where clear communication, prompt updates, and personal attention always come first.
When people come to our team for help, we take the time to explain their options, answer their questions, and inform them about their case. We speak with clients directly and can even visit them at home when necessary.
We take pride in fighting for everyday people who are hurt by others’ lack of care. If you slipped, tripped, or fell due to an unsafe condition on someone else’s property, we’re here to help. Don’t hesitate to reach out to us when you’re ready to talk. We’re on your side, fighting for you.
Do You Have a Time Limit for Filing a NY Premises Liability Claim?
New York law gives you a limited time to file a premises liability lawsuit after a slip-and-fall. In most cases, you have three years from the date of the fall to start your lawsuit. Some claims, such as those involving the city or another public entity, are subject to shorter deadlines and extra requirements.
If you miss a filing deadline, the court may dismiss your case outright. If that happens, you lose the right to seek compensation, no matter how serious your injuries are or how strong the evidence supporting your claim. An insurance company may try to delay or stall in hopes of running out the clock.
Because of that risk, it’s best to discuss your case with an attorney as soon as possible. They can review your situation, identify the applicable deadlines, and take action on your behalf. They can handle the paperwork, deadlines, and filings for your case while you focus on your physical and emotional recovery.
Contact a New York Premises Liability Lawyer Today
At David Resnick & Associates, P.C., we take each case seriously and give every client the personal attention they deserve. We know how slip-and-fall injuries change your daily life in an instant. We also realize that you need to feel supported, personally and legally, in the aftermath.
Here’s what one client had to say about working with us:
“This was my first time experiencing a slip and fall injury, and I’m happy I trusted my gut to choose David Resnick & Associates, P.C. Everyone is so kind and provided me with multiple updates of my case. They assist me with physical therapy and surgery referrals. They never once stopped fighting my case until it was settled with an amount I was satisfied with. I would definitely recommend it to anyone who is in need of an injury lawyer!”
— Ivone Maduro
If you were hurt in a New York slip-and-fall, don’t wait to get answers. The legal team at David Resnick & Associates, P.C., can help you demand the compensation you deserve. Contact us today for a free consultation.
