Id. at 460. “The possessor of land owes no duty to protect or warn of dangers that are open and obvious because such dangers, by their nature, apprise an invitee of the potential hazard . . . Id. at 460-461 (quotation marks and citation omitted). Whether a danger is open and obvious involves an objective inquiry to determine “whether it is reasonable to expect that an average person with ordinary intelligence would have discovered [the danger] upon casual inspection.” Id. at 461. In this case, plaintiff slipped on a steep, ice-covered driveway. Although ice is transparent and difficult to observe in many circumstances, our Supreme Court has explained that “wintry conditions, like any other condition on the premises, may be deemed open and obvious.” Id. at 464; see also id. at 473 (<HOLDING>); Perkoviq v Delcor Homes-Lake Shore Pointe,
holding that it was an abuse of discretion to admit the record when an admission was available holding that an icecovered entryway to a fitness center was an avoidable openandobvious hazard holding that an order directing an insurer to advance legal fees pursuant to an insurance policy was an immediately appealable injunction holding that expert testimony was not necessary in a case involving allegations that a senior living center was negligent for failing to install a fire sprinkler system holding that a section 1983 suit against an officer in his or her official capacity is simply another way of pleading an action against an entity of which an officer is an agent