duty to keep premises safe for invitees applies only to defects or conditions which are in the nature of hidden dangers, traps, snares, pitfalls, and the like, in that they are not known to the invitee, and would not be observed by [the invitee] in the exercise of ordinary care. The invitee assumes all normal, obvious, or ordinary risks attendant on the use of .App.1978). For that reason, liability requires notice to the owner or possessor, either actual or constructive, of the dangerous condition. Ward v. Temple Stephens Co., 418 S.W.2d at 938. A possessor will be deemed to have had actual notice if it is affirmatively shown that an agent or employee of the possessor created the dangerous condition. Id.; Asher v. Broadway-Valentine Center, Inc., 691 S.W.2d at 22-23 (Mo.Ct.App.1957) (<HOLDING>). In the present case, the evidence was not so
holding danger was not so obvious to invitee as to relieve defendant of liability as a matter of law holding as a matter of law that natural condition present was open and obvious to all who would encounter it holding as a matter of law that a child of the tender age of 3 years and 8 months could not have realized the risk or danger of an artificial body of water holding that even if the industry and federal regulations evidenced an inherent danger and the defendant knew or should have realized that the device was or was likely to be dangerous for the use for which it was supplied there was a complete absence of evidence that the defendant had reason to believe that the plaintiff or its employees would not realize the danger holding danger was so open and obvious to plaintiff that as a matter of law he knew or should have known of danger