Plaintiff Glenn Cohen stayed at a hotel in Blythe, California on a summer day when temperatures reached over 110 degrees. Cohen walked barefoot on the concrete pool deck and into the hotel to use the restroom, later discovering that the soles of his feet had burned. He sued the hotel owner, asserting premises liability and negligence claims based on the hotel’s alleged failure to remedy or warn guests of the dangerous condition. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the hotel on two grounds: that the hot pool deck was an open and obvious condition, and that the hotel had no actual or constructive notice that a guest might be injured. Plaintiff appealed, and the hotel retained Horvitz & Levy to defend the judgment on appeal.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, agreeing with Horvitz & Levy’s arguments. The court held that the hot pool deck was an open and obvious condition as a matter of law. The court reasoned that on a hot day in the desert, a reasonably observant person would perceive that exposed concrete surfaces would be extremely hot. Because the danger was obvious, the hotel had no duty to warn of the condition. The court also rejected Cohen’s argument that the “necessity exception” to the open-and-obvious rule applied, finding no evidence that Cohen was required to walk barefoot.
Cohen v. Chandra Hospitality 
