The Law

The case stems from an incident in May 2021, when Jackie Walter tripped and fell outside a Staples store located in the Haysland Square Shopping Center in Huntsville Alabama. At the time, the shopping center was undergoing renovations, including the construction of a grocery store and the installation of new sidewalks in front of the Staples store.

Walter, who was on her way to church to help plan a yard sale, stopped by the store to fax some papers for a neighbor. Upon exiting her car, she walked through a construction zone to reach the store’s entrance. The construction area was marked with barricades, caution tape, traffic cones, and warning signs, including sidewalk‑closure notices that read "SAFETY FIRST" in bold, capital letters.

Despite these precautions, Walter tripped on a section of uneven concrete that had been cut as part of the sidewalk replacement project. The cutting had caused a slight elevation change, ranging from 0.1 to 0.6 inches. The general contractor had sprayed fluorescent orange paint over the affected area to warn pedestrians of the potential hazard. Walter, however, claimed she did not notice the paint and subsequently fell.

Walter filed a lawsuit against the shopping center owner, the general contractor, a subcontractor, and Staples, alleging negligence, recklessness, wantonness, premises liability, and respondeat superior. She argued that the defendants failed to provide adequate warnings or alternative entrances to the store.

The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Walter’s claims were speculative and that the hazard was open and obvious.

The Madison Circuit Court granted the motion, but did not specify the reasoning behind its decision. Walter appealed the ruling, leading to the Alabama Supreme Court’s review.

The case highlights several important legal principles in premises liability:

1. Duty of Care to Invitees: Property owners owe a duty of care to invitees, such as customers, to maintain their premises in a safe condition or provide sufficient warnings about potential hazards. This duty is higher than the duty owed to trespassers or licensees.
2. Open and Obvious Hazards: A property owner is not liable for injuries caused by hazards that are "open and obvious." This means that if a reasonable person in the invitee's position would have recognized the danger, the property owner is not required to provide additional warnings or take further action.
3. Objective Standard: The determination of whether a hazard is open and obvious is based on an objective standard. It does not matter whether the injured party personally noticed the hazard; the question is whether a reasonable person would have perceived it.
4. Burden of Proof in Summary Judgment: In a summary judgment motion, the burden initially falls on the defendant to show that there is no genuine issue of material fact. If the defendant meets this burden, the plaintiff must then present substantial evidence to demonstrate that a genuine issue of material fact exists.

The Alabama Supreme Court focused on the "open and obvious" nature of the hazard that caused Walter's fall. The court noted several factors that supported the defendants' argument:

• Safety Precautions: The construction zone was surrounded by barricades, caution tape, traffic cones, and warning signs, all of which were designed to alert customers to potential hazards.
• Fluorescent Paint: The general contractor had marked the uneven concrete with fluorescent paint to make it visible to passersby. Although Walter claimed she did not notice the paint, the court emphasized that the standard is objective, not subjective. A reasonable person in Walter's position would have recognized the hazard.
• Photographic Evidence: Photos in the record clearly showed the safety precautions and the fluorescent paint marking the uneven concrete. The court found that this evidence contradicted Walter's claim that the hazard was not open and obvious.

The court also compared this case to previous rulings:

• In Owens v. Ganga Hospitality, LLC, the court had affirmed a summary judgment in favor of a hotel where a patron fell on a raised platform that was brightly lit and painted red.
• In McClurg v. Birmingham Realty Co., the court had reversed a summary judgment because the tripping hazard — a hole in a parking lot — was unmarked and blended in with the surrounding asphalt.

The court concluded that the facts in Walter's case were more similar to Owens than McClurg, as the hazard was clearly marked and surrounded by safety precautions.

This case offers several key takeaways for those involved in premises liability disputes:

1. Safety Measures Are Crucial: The defendants’ use of barricades, caution tape, warning signs, and fluorescent paint was central to their defense. Property owners should ensure that hazards are clearly marked and that appropriate safety precautions are in place.
2. Objective Standard for Hazards: The court’s reliance on an objective standard for determining open and obvious hazards highlights the importance of considering what a reasonable person would perceive, rather than focusing solely on the injured party’s subjective experience.
3. Documentation Matters: Photographic evidence played a critical role in this case, as it demonstrated the visibility of the hazard and the safety measures taken by the defendants. Property owners should document their efforts to maintain safe premises and provide warnings.
4. Summary Judgment as a Tool: The case illustrates how summary judgment can be used to resolve premises liability claims when there is no genuine issue of material fact. Plaintiffs must present substantial evidence to overcome a summary judgment motion.

For property owners, the case serves as a reminder to take proactive measures to ensure the safety of their premises and to provide clear warnings about potential hazards. In this case, the defendants were able to successfully argue that they had fulfilled their duty of care by implementing multiple safety precautions and marking the uneven concrete with fluorescent paint.

For invitees, the case highlights the importance of exercising reasonable care when navigating potentially hazardous areas. While property owners have a duty to maintain safe premises or provide warnings, invitees also have a responsibility to be aware of their surroundings and take precautions to avoid obvious dangers.

(Walter v. Branch Hays Farm SC Associates, LP (Supreme Court of Alabama, Docket: SC-2025-0160))

Decided: February 2026
Published: March 2026

Feature Articles

If you have an opinion on the retailing or retail real estate industries, take this opportunity to share your thoughts. Articles should run between 400 and 800 words. Topics can, be general in nature, consumer observation or specific to retail concepts or practices.

Articles will be posted for at least one week and will then be placed in the Editorial Archives. All articles submitted will be read and considered but we cannot guarantee publication. Each published article will carry the submitters byline (if desired) and is a free service to our community.

Article ideas and suggestions are also always welcomed. Contact info@retailtenants.com