a non-obvious condition or one that posed an unreasonable risk of harm capable of surviving summary judgment). Clothes racks in general are not only open and obvious in a department store, they are completely ordinary (unlike, for instance, the “unusual” steps mentioned by the Bertrand court and cited by plaintiff). There is nothing unusual alleged about the particular racks shown in the stipulated evidence, and nothing alleged in their design that disguises a latent danger about which only the proprietor knows. (J.A. 22-23.) As the district court also observed, Cudney did not allege or offer proof that the clothes rack had an unusual design that caused a tripping hazard. Thus, the risk of harm was not unreasonable. Cf. Lugo v. Ameritech, Inc., 464 Mich. 512, 629 N.W.2d 384, 389 (2001) (<HOLDING>). Cudney attempts to rely on the distraction
holding that plaintiff failed to plead facts sufficient to allege affirmative misconduct on the part of the government holding that the liability creating event constitutes an occurrence holding that a plaintiff must allege facts that distinguish him from the typical person the ban applies to in order to state an as applied claim holding that the plaintiff did not present evidence of retaliation and therefore the plaintiff failed to allege facts that would allow a rational jury to conclude that the employers reasons for termination were pretextual holding that potholes are an everyday occurrence that ordinarily would be seen by a reasonably cautious person and the plaintiff failed to allege any special aspects that made the open and obvious pothole an unreasonable risk