Category Archives: Organization

Conclusions and summaries—expert consensus in a series of posts 3

“Don’t make your reader hang on for the surprise ending. You are not Agatha Christie. Instead, state your conclusion very early in your writing.

. . .

When you state the conclusion right up front, the reader knows where you are going and is more forgiving of your digressions later on.”

Timothy Perrin, Better Writing for Lawyers 98–99 (Law Soc. of Upper Canada 1990).

Before and after true topic sentences.

Don’t do this:

In Williams v. Tulsa Motels, 958 P.2d 1282, 1284 (Okla. 1998) a business invitee brought a negligence action against hotel owners seeking recovery for injuries sustained in a slip and fall. Williams, 58 P.2d at 1284. The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that “It is clear that the danger of the wet floor was open and obvious and Williams knew of the danger when he chose to walk on the wet floor.” Id. at 1285 (emphasis added). Thus, the Supreme Court held that the wet floor that the business invitee slipped on was an open and obvious danger that hotel owners had no duty to protect against. Id. at 1284-85.

In Dover v. W.H. Braum, Inc., 111 P.3d 243 (Okla. 2005), the Supreme Court held that there was “no obligation to warn an invitee who knew the condition of the property against patent and obvious dangers and there is no actionable negligence in the absence of a duty neglected or violated.” Id. at 246. The court further held that the defendant did not enhance a natural hazard; thus, there was no duty on the part of store to warn patron or alter premises to protect patron who slipped and fell on ice while leaving the store. Id.

Moreover, in Safeway, Inc. v. Sanders, 372 P.2d 1021, 1023 (Okla. 1962), the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that placement of a chair in an aisle did not create a hidden or inherently dangerous condition. As a result, the store owner was not liable for injuries of customers who should have observed the chair in the exercise of due care. Id. The Court held that the chair was plainly visible, and there was nothing inherently dangerous about it. Id. “The duty to keep premises safe for invitees applies only to defects which are in the nature of hidden dangers, and the invitee assumes all normal or obvious risks attendant on the use of the premises.” Id.

Do this:

A property owner has no duty to protect an invitee against a danger the invitee knows about. Dover v. W.H. Braum, Inc., 111 P.3d 243, 246 (Okla. 2005). In Dover, the court affirmed summary judgment, holding that a store owner had no duty to warn a patron who slipped and fell on ice while leaving the store. Id. The patron had admitted seeing the ice when entering the store. Id.

But the danger need not be actually known; there is no duty to an invitee as long as the danger is “open and obvious.” Williams v. Tulsa Motels, 958 P.2d 1282, 1284 (Okla. 1998). There, an invitee sued a motel for injuries sustained in a slip and fall. Id. at 1284. In affirming summary judgment, the court held that the danger of a wet floor was open and obvious and that the plaintiff should have known of the danger when he chose to walk on the wet floor. Id. at 1285.

Put another way, an open and obvious danger is one that is “plainly visible.” Safeway, Inc. v. Sanders, 372 P.2d 1021, 1023 (Okla. 1962). Thus, a store owner was not liable for injuries to customers who should have seen a plainly visible chair in the store aisle. Id. Summary judgment was affirmed. Id. at 1024.