Legal Opinion

Walter E. and Mary L. Hersh v. E-T Enterprises

West Virginia Supreme Court

Decided November 12, 2013No. 12-0106SeparateCited by 49 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

KETCHUM, Justice:

In this appeal from the Circuit Court of Berkeley County, we are asked to examine the “open and obvious” doctrine as it applies in premises liability actions. Under this common-law doctrine, if a plaintiff is injured by a hazard on another’s land that was “open and obvious” such that it was or could have been known to the reasonable plaintiff, then the plaintiff is barred as a matter of law from recovering any damages from the premises owner or possessor. Under the doctrine, the premises owner or possessor owes no duty of care to eliminate open and obvious hazards; instead,…

2Cases cited65 opinions

  1. Painter v. PeavyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Federal Insurance Co. of New YorkWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1963
  3. Ward v. K Mart Corp.Illinois Supreme Court · 1990
  4. Parker v. Highland Park, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1978
  5. Bradley v. Appalachian Power Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1979

60 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by49 opinions

  1. Weigle v. Pifer ex rel. City of Vienna Police DepartmentDistrict Court, S.D. West Virginia · 2015
  2. Tug Valley Pharmacy, LLC v. All BelowWest Virginia Supreme Court · 2015
  3. Charles Harris v. Norfolk Southern Railway CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2015
  4. Raab v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.District Court, S.D. West Virginia · 2015
  5. McNeilly v. Greenbrier Hotel Corp.District Court, S.D. West Virginia · 2014

44 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API