Also known as: obvious · obviously · nonobvious · nonobviousness · § 103 · Graham factors
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The quality or state of a danger, fact, or inference being readily apparent to a reasonable person or to an officer drawing on training and experience. The obviousness of a condition ordinarily defeats liability or justifies official action under the governing doctrine.
Odilia Okamura enters a store as an invitee and sees a wet floor near the entrance with no warning sign. She slips and sustains injuries. Because the danger was obvious to her, the store avoids liability under the known-or-obvious-danger rule.
During a lawful traffic stop, an officer spots an opaque balloon on the passenger seat of Opal Okoro's car. Drawing on training and experience, the officer recognizes it as likely containing drugs even though the connection is not obvious to an average person. The seizure is upheld.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Otis Olsen, an invitee using a public utility facility, encounters an obvious hazard on the premises. The utility must anticipate harm because invitees are entitled to use the facility, so the possessor faces potential liability despite the obviousness of the danger.
An officer stops Odette Orozco after observing behavior that, based on the officer's experience and training, suggests criminal activity. The inference would not be obvious to an untrained person, yet the totality of circumstances supports reasonable suspicion for the stop.
Odin Obeng receives a representation about property condition that he knows is false. Because the falsity is obvious to him, he cannot justifiably rely on the statement in a later fraud claim.
Olivia Owens faces an attacker and responds with force that a reasonable person would realize is likely to cause serious bodily harm. The obviousness of the potential for grave injury determines whether the means of self-defense is privileged.
Obviousness bars patent protection when the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. The ultimate conclusion is a question of law even though underlying inquiries involve facts.
Supporting sources
A possessor of land is not liable for harm from a danger that is known or obvious to invitees unless the possessor should anticipate the harm despite the obviousness. The obviousness of the condition therefore ordinarily defeats the invitee's claim.
Police may seize an item in plain view when training and experience give them probable cause to believe it contains contraband even if the connection would not be obvious to an average person.
…antibiotic. [^maj-5]: This case does not involve the other "conditions and requirements" of the patent laws, such as novelty and nonobviousness. 35 U. S. C. §§ 102, 103. [^maj-6]: This same language was employed by P. J. Federico, a principal draftsman of the 1952 recodification, in his testimony regarding that legislation:…