November 25, 1999

An open-and-shut case

By ANDREW BERGH
Special to the Journal

Did you know that automatic doors open automatically?

Well, so did I.

But some people have seemingly enjoyed fewer life experiences than the rest of us. How else to explain the likes of Brown v. Pet Supplies Plus?

In that case, a customer sued a storeowner -- apparently with a straight face -- for not warning her about an automatic door that hit and injured her head.

The setting for this tale is the town of Boardman, Ohio.

On Oct. 9, 1993, Victoria Brown accompanied her family to the local pet store intending to buy a pet cage. With her daughter in her arms, Brown dutifully followed her husband into the store through an automatic door.

So far, so good.

However, after choosing a cage, Brown realized that it wouldn't fit in her car. So instead of buying it right then and there, she asked the cashier whether the cage could be held until they returned with a larger car.

While the employees mulled things over, Brown's husband carried the box containing the cage to the front of the store and put it down next to the entrance. That's when the cashier said the store could hold the cage, and pointed out where Brown should store it.

As her husband struggled to lift the box, Brown bent down to help him. Just then another customer entered the store, causing the automatic door to swing open. In the wrong place at the wrong time, Brown's head was whacked by the edge of the door. She reportedly left immediately with a bad headache.

Brown apparently suffered more than just a headache, because she later sued the store owner, Pet Supplies Plus, in Mahoning County Common Pleas Court. Her main accusation? That the store had negligently failed to warn her about the danger posed by an automatic door.

The pet store, going on the offensive, responded with a motion to dismiss Brown's suit. The tactic paid off when the trial judge said adios to the customer's claims.

There was no duty to warn about any hazards associated with automatic doors, ruled the judge, since the doors were "open and obvious" to any customer entering the store.

Makes perfect sense, right?

Nope -- at least not to Brown, who appealed the decision. Brown argued that a proper warning would have been a rug on the floor. Why? To indicate the door's path. She also claimed that the cashier should have given a "cautionary word" about the danger posed by the automatic door.

But the appeals court was just as unimpressed as the lower one had been.

It's true, said the court, that a store should warn its customers about latent conditions that are unreasonably dangerous. This duty is predicated upon the store's "superior knowledge of the store's intricacies," including concealed features.

But it's also true, added the court, that a store owes no duty to post warnings about open and obvious dangers -- the rationale being that the "conspicuousness" of the danger suffices as a warning.

Turning to the facts of the case, the appeals court emphasized that Brown had entered through the very same door that later bonked her on the head. On top of that, a railing separated the entrance and exit doors, which had appropriately-placed stickers on both sides that said "Enter" and "Do Not Enter."

But even if the door had not been automatic, said the court, it was still obvious that the entrance door opened inward, and that a customer shouldn't place her head in its path.

Enough already.

If there's a moral to this story, it's that you rarely want your legal claim to hinge on the condition of a door. Because as Victoria Brown finally learned the hard way, you'll only be shown the door -- the one leaving the courthouse.

Previous columns:

• Praise the law, 11-04-1999
• After grief comes gimme, 10-21-1999
• Cybercow meets digitruck, 10-01-1999
• Strange, blind justice, 09-23-1999
• Court case turns on a Barney doll, 09-02-1999
• Reasonable care for shorties, 08-05-1999
• Just say Boo to drugs, 07-22-1999
• Warning: The soup contains MSG, 07-09-1999