The exception applies where a possessor should reasonably anticipate that an entrant will be distracted and fail to observe or avoid an obvious hazard. Retail displays, wayfinding, and required tasks are common contexts.
It preserves a duty despite the hazard's obviousness.
Alternative Names:
Distraction Doctrine, Foreseeable Distraction
Why it Matters?
Retail environments are designed to draw attention to merchandise, which is precisely the argument the exception supports and why it succeeds in store cases more often than elsewhere. The defense response addresses whether the specific distraction was foreseeable to the possessor rather than merely present, and whether the hazard could have been avoided with ordinary attention. Surveillance showing where the plaintiff was looking is unusually useful.
Frequently Confused with
Related terms
Frequently asked questions
Why does the exception succeed in retail cases?
What is the defense response?
