Understanding Arizona’s ‘Open and Obvious’ Rule in Premises Liability Claims

If you have been injured in a slip and fall or another type of accident on someone else’s property, you may have the right to file a personal injury claim against the property owner for compensation. Filing a personal injury claim is far more complex than it may seem at first, however. Property owners will raise many defenses to protect themselves from liability and to settle cases for the lowest amount possible.

One of the defenses property owners commonly raise is the ‘open and obvious rule.’ If a property owner uses this defense after you are hurt on their property and they are successful, it could reduce your damages or eliminate your right to them completely. It is critical to work with an Arizona premises liability lawyer who knows the defenses raised in these cases and how to overcome them.

Understanding the ‘open and obvious’ rule

The ‘open and obvious’ rule in premises liability cases is a defense asserted by property owners to argue that they are not to blame for injuries sustained from hazards that are clearly visible and that a reasonable person would notice and avoid. Historically, the ‘open and obvious’ rule could sometimes relieve property owners of their duty to warn. Today, there have been shifts in Arizona’s legal landscape that sometimes still require property owners to take certain measures if a hazard will cause foreseeable harm.

An ‘open and obvious’ hazard in Arizona is a danger that the average, reasonable person would see when exercising ordinary care. For example, objects that are very large or clearly visible would likely be seen by the average reasonable person. As such, they are open and obvious, and individuals should look for them to protect their own safety.

Generally speaking, property owners may still have a duty to warn or take reasonable precautions even when a danger is open and obvious. Still, an open and obvious danger does not provide property owners with full immunity from being found liable. Under certain exceptions, there are still instances in which property owners can be found liable for an open and obvious hazard.

The open and obvious rule in Perez v. Circle K

In 2025, an Arizona Supreme Court decision in Perez v. Circle K highlighted the fact that business owners still owe a duty to visitors on their premises and that an open and obvious hazard on its own is not a complete defense.

In 2020, Roxanne Perez visited her local Circle K store. After selecting ice cream from a freezer, Perez turned to continue down another aisle. As she tried to enter the next aisle, she tripped and fell over one case of water sitting on the floor at the end of the aisle. Circle K argued that ‘end caps’ on displays are very common in retail stores. Perez, on the other hand, stated that she did not see the case of water before tripping on it, but she could have if she had looked down.

The Supreme Court justices rejected claims by Circle K that the case of water was an ‘open and obvious’ hazard and so the company should not be held liable. Instead, they ruled that store owners have a legal duty to maintain their premises in a manner that is reasonably safe for customers.

The Supreme Court’s decision sent the case back to the trial court in Maricopa County that had thrown out the lawsuit based on a lack of legal merit. Today, the decision in Perez v. Circle K means the ‘open and obvious’ defense is a factor for juries to consider and not grounds for automatically dismissing a case.

Exceptions to the ‘open and obvious’ rule

As with most legal issues, there are exceptions to the ‘open and obvious’ rule. These include:

• Unavoidable hazards: If a visitor to a property must encounter a hazard, such as a stairway with broken stairs, and there is no safe alternative, the owner may still be found liable for any injuries caused by the hazard.
• Foreseeable distractions: If a property owner should have known that a visitor would be distracted while on their property, such as by bright signs or store displays, they could be held liable even if a hazard is open and obvious to a reasonable person.
• Foreseeable harm: Arizona courts recognize that property owners may still be liable when an open and obvious danger presents foreseeable harm. In these instances, property owners must warn visitors or take reasonable steps to protect them from harm.
• Violation of safety laws: The open and obvious defense may not apply when a hazard exists because of a violation of safety laws.

Under state law in Arizona, determining if a property owner is liable depends on whether they breached their duty of care by failing to warn visitors of dangers or failing to maintain their premises in a safe condition. Ultimately, determining if an exception applies is a matter for juries to decide.

How do the courts interpret the open and obvious rule?

Historically, the ‘open and obvious’ rule was a defense in premises liability claims. The case of Perez v. Circle K changed that, however. Today, the courts interpret ‘open and obvious’ conditions in a number of ways, including:

• Breach of duty: The Perez case identified that a property owner’s duty to visitors depends on the type of visitor and that business invitees are owed the highest duty of care. Since the Supreme Court’s decision, an open and obvious hazard is not an automatic bar to liability but instead is considered a possible breach of duty.
• Reasonable person: Hazardous conditions are considered open and obvious if an average person with ordinary intelligence and who exercises reasonable care would have seen and avoided the danger.
• Comparative fault: When a hazard is open and obvious, reasonable people should have seen it and avoided it. As such, accident victims may be found partly to blame under Arizona’s comparative negligence law. This does not necessarily bar accident victims from recovering compensation, but it may reduce the total amount awarded.

Our premises liability lawyers in Arizona can help with your case

It is easier for accident victims to recover compensation after being hurt by an open and obvious hazard, but it is still critical that you work with our Arizona premises liability lawyers. At Verderame Law Group Arizona Injury Lawyers, our experienced attorneys can analyze distractions, show that the hazard was unavoidable, or use strong evidence to show that the danger was not obvious. We work tirelessly to build a strong case, explain your legal options, and ensure that you are properly prepared. Call us today or contact us online to schedule a consultation and to learn more about how we can help.