Kent Morlan

Defendant's Attorney: Mike Nolan

Description: Tulsa, OK - Opal Lorene Tavernier and Tom Travenier sued Nisha Inn, Inc. d/b/a Best Western Airport on premises liability and loss of consortium theories claiming that they were injured and/or damaged in a trip and fall accident suffered by Mrs. Tavernier while she was a guest at the Defendant's motel.

Oklahoma Premises Liability Law by Kent Morlan

Duty to Invitee to Maintain Premises -- Generally

It is the duty of the [owner/occupant] to use ordinary care to keep [his/her/its] premises in a reasonably safe condition for the use of [his/her/its] invitees. It is the duty of the [owner/occupant] either to remove or warn the invitee of any hidden danger on the premises that the [owner/occupant] either actually knows about, or that [he/she/it] should know about in the exercise of reasonable care, or that was created by [him/her/it] [or any of [his/her/its] employees who were acting within the scope of their employment]. This duty extends to all portions of the premises to which an invitee may reasonably be expected to go.

Hidden Danger

A hidden danger is a dangerous condition that the invitee [licensee] does not actually know about and would not be expected to observe in the exercise of ordinary care. A hidden danger may be totally or partially obscured from sight but it need not be if the circumstances are such that the invitee [licensee] would not be expected to observe the dangerous condition in the exercise of ordinary care.

Open and Obvious Danger

The [owner/occupant] has no duty to protect invitees [licensees] from or warn them of any dangerous condition that is open and obvious, because an open and obvious danger is ordinarily readily observable by invitees [licensees].

DUTY TO LICENSEE TO MAINTAIN- PREMISES- GENERALLY

The [owner/occupant] of premises has a duty to a licensee, whose presence on the premises is known or reasonably should be known, not to injure [him/her] 1) by a willful or wanton act, or 2) by needlessly exposing [him/her] to danger by a failure to warn of any hidden danger on the premises that is known to the [owner/occupant] and that the licensee is not likely to discover by [himself/herself]. This duty is limited to any hidden danger that the [owner/occupant] actually knows about, and the [owner/occupant] has no duty to inspect the premises for hidden dangers.

LESSOR'S LIABILITY AS AFFECTED BY [HIS/HER] PROMISE TO MAKE SPECIFIC REPAIRS TO PREMISES

When a [lessor/landlord] has agreed to make specific repairs and the defect[s] to be repaired create[s] an unreasonable risk of injury to persons upon the premises, and such risk could have been prevented if the [lessor/landlord] had made the repairs, the [lessor/landlord] is then liable for injuries directly caused by [his/her/its] failure to use ordinary care to perform [his/her/its] agreement.

LIABILITY OF LESSOR WHO UNDERTAKES REPAIR OF PREMISES

If a [lessor/landlord] voluntarily undertakes to make repairs, [he/she/it] is under a duty to use ordinary care to make such repairs.

DUTY TO TRESPASSER TO MAINTAIN PREMISES- ELEMENTS OF LIABILITY

The [owner/occupant] of premises has no duty to make [his/her/its] premises safe for a trespasser. However, an [owner/occupant] of premises does have a duty to a trespasser, whose presence on the premises is known or reasonably should be known, not to injure [him/her] by a willful, wanton, or intentional act.

Outcome: Settled for an undisclosed sum and dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: