lot was located directly in front of the restaurant entrance and exit; vehicles would drip oil and other liquids on the surface of the parking lot; the parking lot sloped down away from the restaurant; and that there was a specific company procedure for using degreasers on the surface of the parking lot. The district court did not err in submitting the issue whether the dangerous condition was open and obvious to the jury in instruction No. 14. Whether the challenged condition was so openly and obviously dangerous that a reasonably prudent individual would not attempt it essentially asks whether that individual was eontributorily negligent, which is usually a question pf fact for the jury (or the trial court as fact-finder). See, e.g., Dixon v. General Grocery Co., 293 S.W.2d at 419 (<HOLDING>); Summa v. Morgan Real Estate Co., 350 Mo. 205,
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 danger was so open and obvious to plaintiff that as a matter of law he knew or should have known of danger holding that an obvious joke told during an obvious comedy performance was not defamatory as a matter of law recognizing adequacy of notice as a matter of obvious constitutional magnitude