Background
Rita Akin sued ROIC Oregon, LLC for negligence after she tripped over a parking block in an ADA-designated space in ROIC Oregon’s parking lot. The fall occurred on a sunny day as Akin walked toward the building, causing her to strike a metal railing and the ground.
The parking block was properly installed at the head of the space and marked with four bright yellow vertical stripes. Akin parked to the right of center, leaving two stripes exposed. She said that she did not see the markings because she was focused on the nearby curb, sidewalk, and railing. The trial court granted summary judgment to ROIC Oregon, concluding that no reasonable jury could find that the parking block created an unreasonable risk of harm.
The Court’s Holding
The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed. Viewing the evidence in Akin’s favor, it held that she had not produced sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the parking block, together with surrounding circumstances, posed an unreasonable risk of harm.
The court emphasized that the block was in the expected location at the head of a parking space, had no alleged defect or irregularity, and bore bright yellow stripes that showed its height and contrasted with the black pavement. Akin offered no evidence of poor lighting, slippery conditions, visual obstruction, or prior similar accidents. Her statement that she was looking elsewhere did not establish that the block was not visible.
Key Takeaways
- A properly installed parking block in its expected location does not necessarily create an unreasonable risk of harm.
- Courts may consider collateral circumstances such as lighting, weather, visual obstructions, structural defects, and prior similar incidents when assessing premises liability.
- An invitee’s attention being directed toward nearby features, without evidence that the condition was obscured or deceptively presented, may be insufficient to defeat summary judgment.
Why It Matters
The opinion illustrates the evidence an Oregon premises-liability plaintiff may need to survive summary judgment when injured by an ordinary property feature. A plaintiff’s failure to notice a visible condition is not enough by itself; evidence must permit a reasonable finding that the condition and its surrounding circumstances created an unreasonable risk of harm.
The decision is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion under ORAP 10.30 and may be cited only as that rule permits.