## Facts

- Nancy J. Klopp went through an airport security checkpoint to board a Trans World Airlines (TWA) flight.
- The checkpoint was operated by The Wackenhut Corporation under contract with TWA; TWA owned the equipment and arranged its configuration.
- The metal detector sat on a stanchion base protruding about 18 inches into the walkway between the detector exit and the baggage table.
- Klopp triggered the alarm, removed jewelry, and placed it on the baggage table; after clearing the detector she turned back to retrieve her bracelet.
- While walking back toward the baggage table, she tripped over the protruding stanchion base and injured her leg and knee.
- The protrusion was visible and obvious, but Klopp argued passengers were foreseeably distracted by the security process and retrieval of belongings.
- The configuration had been FAA-approved, and there were no prior reported trips or falls at that station.

## Issues

1. Whether, after adoption of comparative negligence, the open-and-obvious nature of a condition eliminates or limits an occupier’s duty to a business visitor.
2. Whether TWA owed a duty of reasonable care despite the obviousness of the protruding base, including a duty to anticipate foreseeable distraction.
3. Whether Wackenhut owed a duty regarding the equipment configuration where it lacked authority to rearrange it.
4. Whether the evidence permitted the case to go to the jury or warranted directed verdicts.

## Decision

- The New Mexico Supreme Court held that an open and obvious condition does not negate an occupier’s duty of reasonable care to business visitors; obviousness is addressed through breach and comparative fault.
- The directed verdict for TWA was reversed because a jury could reasonably find foreseeable distraction and an unreasonable risk created by the configuration TWA controlled.
- The directed verdict for Wackenhut was affirmed because its duty was limited by the extent of its control, and it lacked authority to change the equipment configuration that allegedly caused the hazard.
- The court disapproved a uniform jury instruction that effectively asked the jury to decide duty based on the occupier’s knowledge; duty is a question of law.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings against TWA.

## Legal Principles

- A premises occupier owes business visitors a duty of reasonable care to guard against foreseeable, avoidable dangers; the obviousness of a danger does not eliminate that duty.
- Under comparative negligence, an obvious hazard generally bears on breach and apportionment of fault rather than serving as a complete bar through “no duty.”
- Even where a condition is obvious, liability may exist if it is reasonably foreseeable that visitors will be distracted and fail to protect themselves.
- A defendant’s duty and potential liability for a dangerous condition are bounded by the defendant’s control over the premises or chattels; lack of authority to correct a configuration can preclude liability for that configuration.
- Directed verdict is improper where reasonable inferences favor the nonmoving party and a jury could find foreseeability and unreasonable risk.

## Conclusion

The court held that comparative negligence subsumes the open-and-obvious doctrine: land occupiers still owe reasonable care to business visitors, and obviousness is handled through breach and fault allocation; because TWA controlled the checkpoint layout and a jury could find foreseeable distraction, the case against TWA had to be tried, while Wackenhut was not liable absent control over the configuration.


Klopp v. Wackenhut Corp., 824 P.2d 293 (N.M. 1992)