Premises liability; Open & obvious danger; The special-aspects exception

The court held that the trial court did not err by determining that the “allegedly dangerous condition was open and obvious and no special aspects existed.” PVC pipes were stored vertically on shelves, with vertical guards separating them. When plaintiff grabbed one of the pipes, “another slid down the display and fell on his toe.” He argued that the trial court erred in concluding “the vertically stacked PVC pipes posed an open and obvious danger and the special-aspects exception to the open and obvious doctrine did not apply.” However, the trial court did not err by holding that “the open and obvious doctrine applied and that no special aspects existed. An average person with ordinary intelligence would have discovered upon casual inspection the allegedly dangerous condition at issue here, i.e., that removing one PVC pipe out of the elevated, open-bin shelving unit containing several vertically stacked unsecured PVC pipes could result in another pipe sliding and falling out of the display. Further, there was nothing about the display that presented a substantial risk of severe harm or death.” Thus, the trial court did not err by holding that “the ‘racking system’ was a typical open and obvious danger rather than a danger that was unreasonably dangerous.” And although plaintiff did not claim that “the alleged danger was effectively unavoidable, such an argument would fail. Plaintiff chose to enter the self-service lumberyard area and load the pipes into his vehicle on his own without seeking assistance.” Affirmed.