Michael F. Schmidt Wins “Distracted Customer” Injury Case In Court Of Appeals

Miller v Bass Pro Shop, Court of Appeals affirmed our summary disposition. The plaintiff tripped and fell over the base of a display sign at the Bass Pro Shop. She claimed that she was distracted by taxidermy mounts displayed by the store. The plaintiff argued that there should be a “distracted customer” exception to the open and obvious defense. The Court of Appeals affirmed our summary disposition and ruled that there is no “distracted customer” exception to the open and obvious defense, that the only exception is the “special aspects analysis” and that the plaintiff’s claim did not meet this analysis and thus was rejected by the court. The court further held that despite the huge debate that exists in the jurisprudence of the state over what constitutes open and obvious and the subtleties that the Supreme Court defines as fitting within that rule, “this case appears to be at the opposite end of the spectrum.”