I excerpted the paragraphs in my “true topic sentences” posts from a real brief. I then rewrote the paragraphs. What followed those case-explanation paragraphs was an argument. I have rewritten it below.

This court should affirm the summary judgment in Jensen’s action against the hospital just as the Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed the trial courts in Dover, Williams, and Sanders. Jensen cannot prove an element of his claim, specifically that the hospital had a duty to protect him against the puddle on the floor. The hospital had no duty because the puddle was an open and obvious danger.

By his own admission, Jensen noticed the puddle. He is therefore in the same position as the plaintiff in Williams, who saw the wet floor, and the plaintiff in Dover, who knew about the ice. The court affirmed summary judgments in those cases precisely because the plaintiffs knew about the dangerous conditions; the conditions were open and obvious. Those plaintiffs could not prove the duty element of their claims, and Jensen, who knew about the puddle, cannot prove the duty element of his claim.

What’s more, Jensen saw the puddle but tried to step over it, just as the plaintiff in Williams walked on a floor he knew was wet. Under the circumstances, the result in Williams is appropriate here: The hospital has no duty to protect Jensen against an open and obvious danger—one Jensen knew about. The trial court’s summary judgment should therefore be affirmed.