What does the "open and obvious doctrine" entail in premises liability cases in Ohio?

The "open and obvious doctrine" in premises liability cases in Ohio asserts that a property owner may not be held liable for injuries sustained by an individual if the danger is readily apparent and obvious. This doctrine underscores the principle that individuals have a duty to observe their surroundings and to recognize dangers that are clear and visible. For instance, if a person trips over a well-marked step or a noticeable hazard, the property owner may argue that the individual should have been aware of that risk and therefore cannot claim negligence.

This doctrine is grounded in the belief that it is unreasonable to expect property owners to protect individuals from dangers that are so clear that a reasonable person would recognize them. While there are exceptions, such as if the danger is hidden or if the owner purposely creates an unsafe condition that is not evident, the general application of the open and obvious doctrine provides property owners with a defense against liability claims when a hazard is apparent.

In contrast, the other options do not accurately capture the nuances of premises liability as understood through the lens of the open and obvious doctrine. For example, the notion that property owners must always place warning signs is overly broad, as it doesn’t account for hazards that are classified as open and obvious. Similarly, not all injury claims require evidence