Daniels v. Wiley, et al., [Ms. 1190208, June 26, 2020] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2020). The Court (Bolin,
J.; Parker, C.J., and Shaw, Wise, Bryan, Sellers, Mendheim, Stewart, and
Mitchell, JJ., concur) affirms the Madison Circuit Court’s summary
judgment dismissing claims by Daniels, an apartment tenant against her
landlord, alleging that mud had accumulated on the sidewalk as a result
of a rain earlier in the day, causing her to slip and fall when she stepped
off the sidewalk curb. Ms. *2. Daniels acknowledged that the danger was
open and obvious but argued that a jury question was presented because
the landlord had prior knowledge that mud accumulated on the sidewalk
during rain events creating a hazard.
The Court affirms, explaining that “the law relied upon by Daniels
holding that a landlord has a duty to eliminate open and obvious dangers
or to warn an invitee of such dangers if the invitor ‘should anticipate
the harm’ – is not the law in Alabama.” Ms. *27, citing
Lamson &Sessions Bolt Co. v. McCarty, 234 Ala. 60,173 So. 388 (1937).
The Court declines to reach the merits of Daniels’s alternative argument
that the defendant “breached a special duty, as distinguished from
the general duty we have already discussed. Daniels appears to maintain
that, because the [Safety & Maintenance] Manual used at the apartment
complex required daily inspections of the property to identify and remove
debris, Hawthorne-Midway had ‘a self-imposed duty to inspect the
property for daily debris’ and that it breached that duty by failing
to identify and remove the danger created by the mud.” Ms. *29.
Daniels failed to cite any authority to support the existence of special duty.
Ibid.
Daniels waived any argument that the trial court erred in dismissing her
wantonness claim because she failed to present evidence showing that Hawthorne-Midway
consciously disregarded her safety and did not address the dismissal of
her wantonness claim in her appellate brief. Ms. *31.