In this diversity jurisdiction matter, the plaintiff alleged that she suffered injuries after tripping and falling on a partially empty black pallet or “stack base” while shopping in the defendant’s store. Prior to the incident, the plaintiff had walked past the pallet approximately four times. The incident occurred when the plaintiff, while attempting to allow a stock cart (pushed by an employee of the defendant) pass her, backed up and tripped on the pallet behind her. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment and argued that no duty was owed to the plaintiff, as the alleged condition was an obvious danger that was avoidable by the exercise of ordinary care. In deciding the defendant’s motion, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania reasoned that “the question of whether a plaintiff should have known about a certain dangerous condition is reserved for the jury unless reasonable minds cannot differ as to the plaintiff’s negligence.” The district court held that “it is generally inappropriate to grant summary judgment when factual disputes exist regarding the obviousness of a given condition . . . even where a plaintiff has admitted that they were distracted or were not looking where they were going.” The district court ruled that the evidence of the case presented questions of fact as to the obviousness of the black pallet and whether the plaintiff was reasonably districted by the employee pushing the stock cart. As such, the district court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.