avoid the attendant risks. In such an instance, there is a duty to remedy the condition. The swimming pool, as plaintiff alleges, is an obvious danger. Because Consolidated could reasonably expéct that plaintiff appreciated the risk associated with the pool, no duty arose as a result of its existence. Ordinarily, neither a utility pedestal nor a fence poses any particular danger, and no injury is alleged to have occurred as a result of plaintiff’s contact with either. There are no facts to suggest that placement of the pedestal next to the fence rendered the danger of the pool less obvious. Further, there were no facts alleged to suggest that the condition of the pool itself was, for any reason, made less obviously dangerous. (See Ward v. K mart Corp. (1990), 136 Ill. 2d 132, 149-50 (<HOLDING>); see also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 339,
holding that where an invitees attention is distracted obviousness of danger is not conclusive in determining duty of possessor holding that plain meaning of legislation should be conclusive holding that common knowledge and common sense of one skilled in the art must be considered in determining obviousness holding that compliance with fda requirements though admissible to demonstrate lack of negligence is not conclusive on this issue just as violation of fda requirements is evidence but not conclusive evidence of negligence holding expert testimony was not required where jury is capable of determining existence of duty