A Painted Sidewalk Drop-Off Wasn’t Enough to End This Injury Case
A Missouri appellate court revived a sidewalk-fall case against a city, holding that factual disputes remained over whether a painted step-down was still dangerously unsafe.
Slip-and-fall cases often rise or fall on whether the condition was truly dangerous or just something a pedestrian should have seen. In Hursman v. City of Sedalia, No. WD87919 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. Nov. 25, 2025), the Missouri Court of Appeals revived a sidewalk-fall case after a city had won summary judgment.
The opinion is especially useful for personal injury readers because it deals with a very real-world scenario: a painted drop-off in a sidewalk, a fall that caused ankle injuries requiring surgery, and a city arguing the condition was either safe enough or open and obvious.
What Happened on the Sidewalk
According to the opinion, Tina Hursman visited a lawyer’s office in Sedalia and later left the building by a different route than the one she had used on prior visits. As she walked toward the intersection, she encountered a step-down in the sidewalk created to accommodate a wheelchair ramp. The drop-off was about five inches at its highest point and had been marked with paint.
Hursman testified that she was walking with her head up, looking ahead for traffic and pedestrians, and did not notice the step. Her foot slipped, she lost her balance, and she fell. The opinion says she suffered an ankle injury requiring surgical repair.
Why the City Initially Won
The City moved for summary judgment and argued that Hursman’s injuries were not caused by a dangerous condition, that the City lacked notice, and that any condition was open and obvious. The trial court entered judgment for the City, reasoning in part that the painted step made the condition safe enough and obvious enough.
But the appellate court took a different view of the summary judgment record.
Why the Court of Appeals Reversed
The Western District noted that the City’s own representative acknowledged the step was painted because the change in elevation could cause someone to lose balance and suffer slips, trips, or falls. Hursman also presented an affidavit from a safety expert who opined that a warning line was the least effective way to address the hazard and that a barrier or guard would be a safer approach.
The Court of Appeals held that genuine factual disputes remained, including whether the step-down constituted a dangerous condition and whether the City’s warning measures were sufficient. Because of those disputes, summary judgment was improper and the case had to be sent back for further proceedings.
Why This Case Matters
Hursman is a strong reminder that painting a hazard does not automatically eliminate the danger. In premises-liability cases, owners and municipalities often argue that a warning alone is enough. This decision shows that, depending on the facts, a jury may be allowed to decide whether more protection was needed.
For injured pedestrians, the case also reflects a common reality: people do not walk staring at the pavement every second. Courts may have to consider how ordinary people actually move through sidewalks, curbs, and public walkways when deciding whether a hazard was open and obvious.
