Gable v. Gable

Summary

This document is a dissenting opinion in a West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals case involving premises liability and the open and obvious hazard doctrine. Chief Justice Jenkins argues that the plaintiff’s bare-bones complaint failed to allege facts showing that the hazard was not open and obvious and therefore did not establish a duty of care or state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Justice Armstead joined the dissent.

Holdings

1. In the dissent's view, a premises-liability complaint must include sufficient facts indicating that the alleged hazard was not open and obvious; a bare legal conclusion that the property owner owed a duty is insufficient.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a premises-liability negligence complaint must allege facts indicating that the complained-of hazard was not open and obvious in order to establish that the property possessor owed a duty of care.
2. Whether the complaint's bare allegation that the defendant had a duty to maintain the front steps was sufficient under West Virginia Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.

Disposition

other