Shoe Show, Inc., d/b/a Shoe Dept. Encore v. Tissier, [Ms. CL-2025-0576, Jan. 16, 2026] __ So. 3d ___ (Ala. 2026). The court (Edwards, Hanson, Fridy, and Bowden, JJ., concur) reverses the Walker Circuit Court’s judgment entered following a bench trial in a trip and fall case and renders judgment in favor of the Defendant, Shoe Show. The issue is whether a retail store can be liable for a customer’s fall caused by tripping over shoes and boxes on the floor. The Plaintiff, a business invitee shopping on Black Friday, fell while trying on a shoe and stepping backward onto items on the floor. After a bench trial, the circuit court found that the store negligently failed to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition. Ms. **1–3.
The central issue was whether the hazard that caused the fall was “open and obvious,” which would eliminate the premises owner’s duty to warn or make the condition safe. The court reiterates that a premises owner owes invitees a duty to keep the premises reasonably safe, but that duty does not extend to dangers that should be recognized through the exercise of ordinary care. The test is objective—whether the danger should have been observed—not whether the plaintiff actually saw or appreciated it. Ms. *4.
Applying that standard, the court concludes that the store’s cluttered condition was visible, the plaintiff had noticed it before her fall, and nothing indicated the items she tripped over were hidden or obscured. Because the hazard was open and obvious as a matter of law, Shoe Show owed no duty to warn or make the condition safe. Ms. *5.