Also known as: patent dangers · obvious danger · patent danger rule
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An obvious hazard that a reasonable person would perceive without special inspection. The hazard's openness or obviousness relieves a land possessor or product supplier of liability unless the defendant should anticipate harm despite the condition's visibility.
Perry Pratt, a customer at a shopping plaza, stepped onto a public sidewalk maintained by the plaza owner to reach a bus stop. A large, visible crack in the sidewalk caused him to trip and fracture his ankle. Because Pratt was using a public facility that invitees are entitled to access, the plaza owner should have anticipated the harm despite the crack's obviousness and therefore faces liability.
Patrick Phan purchased a flexible gas line from Omega Flex for his home renovation. The line's tendency to corrode and leak was apparent from its exposed metal surface and product labeling. When the line failed and caused an explosion, Phan's design-defect claim proceeded because the obviousness of the danger was only one factor in the risk-utility analysis rather than an absolute bar.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
No. Under the governing rule a possessor of land is not liable for harm from a known or obvious danger unless the possessor should anticipate the harm despite the obviousness. The fact that an invitee is using public land or a public utility is a factor that supports anticipation of harm.
Supporting sources
Most jurisdictions treat the obviousness of a danger as one factor in the risk-utility balancing test or consumer-expectations test rather than an absolute defense. A plaintiff may still recover when the design's risks outweigh its benefits even if the danger was apparent.
Supporting sources
A patent danger is one that is open and obvious to the user, while a latent defect is hidden. When the danger is latent and known only to the supplier, the supplier cannot rely on obviousness to avoid the duty to warn or repair.
Supporting sources
…related to vindicating the salient public policy in cases in which the alleged defective condition is premised upon either an obvious danger or a danger outside the ordinary consumer’s contemplation suggests that a different approach is necessary and appropriate for judging the reasonableness of danger, at least respecting some…