Superior Court Affirms New Trial in Zoo Injury Case Due to Omission of Open and Obvious Doctrine in Jury Instructions

On appeal, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed a trial court’s granting of a new trial after recognizing it erred in failing to instruct the jury as to the open and obvious doctrine.

The plaintiff brought a negligence claim against the Philadelphia Zoo after his foot struck a decorative boulder in the Big Cat Falls exhibit which caused him to fall and sustain injuries. The defendant filed a post-trial motion, arguing that the trial court erred in excluding the open and obvious doctrine from the jury instructions. A new trial was granted, and the plaintiff appealed.

The appellate court held that the open and obvious doctrine standard is whether the dangerous object is known or obvious. The court further noted that this is usually a question of fact for the jury and that, because the trial court failed to include the open and obvious doctrine in jury instructions when trial evidence created a genuine issue of material fact, the granting of a new trial was correct.