Full Opinion

No. 1018 October 21, 2026 91 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1). IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON Rita AKIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROIC OREGON, LLC, Defendant-Respondent. Multnomah County Circuit Court 21CV48553; A184261 Beth A. Allen, Judge. Argued and submitted December 17, 2025. James R. Gregory argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellant. Bruce C. Smith argued the cause for respondent. Also on the brief was Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP. Before Aoyagi, Presiding Judge, Egan, Judge, and Pagán, Judge. EGAN, J. Affirmed. 92 Akin v. ROIC Oregon, LLC EGAN, J. In this civil action, plaintiff appeals the trial court’s judgment granting summary judgment to defendant after plaintiff brought a negligence action against defendant for injuries she sustained after tripping over a parking block in defendant’s parking lot. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, determining that plaintiff had failed to show an issue of fact as to whether the park- ing block created an unreasonable risk of harm. Plaintiff appeals, assigning error to that ruling. We affirm. On a sunny day, plaintiff parked her car in an ADA- designated parking space, and, as she began to walk toward the building, she tripped over a parking block, falling and striking her head and body on a metal railing and on the ground. The parking block at issue was located at the head of a parking space and contained four bright yellow verti- cal stripes. Plaintiff parked to the right of the center of the parking space, only covering the right two yellow stripes, and leaving the left two yellow stripes exposed. Plaintiff stated that she did not see the yellow markings on the park- ing block, as her “attention was focused on the curb, the sidewalk, and the railing adjacent to the sidewalk.” Defendant moved for summary judgment, contend- ing that plaintiff had failed to present evidence from which a jury could find the parking block created an unreasonable risk of harm to plaintiff. Plaintiff opposed the motion. The trial court granted defendant’s motion, reason- ing that the evidence did not raise genuine issues of mate- rial fact and that defendant was entitled to prevail because the parking block did not—as a matter of law—create an unreasonable risk of harm. It reasoned that even in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the evidence established that the four yellow stripes created a visual contrast; the stripes were the same height as the block, demonstrating the height of the block; the stripes were not obscured, dis- solved, faded, or otherwise diminished in appearance; plain- tiff parked off the center of the parking spot, making the left two yellow stripes visible to plaintiff; the parking block was not in an unexpected location; plaintiff presented no Nonprecedential Memo Op: 354 Or App 91 (2026) 93 evidence that the parking block was defective, or uneven, or had some irregularity that created a risk of harm; and there was no history of tripping incidents involving the parking block at issue. This appeal followed. Plaintiff alleges that the trial court erred in grant- ing summary judgment because a reasonable jury could find that the parking block, combined with the presence of collateral factors, created an unreasonable risk of harm to plaintiff. We review a trial court’s grant of summary judg- ment to determine whether “the pleadings, depositions, affi- davits, declarations, and admissions on file show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law.” ORCP 47 C. No issue of material fact exists if, viewing the evidence in the most favorable light to the nonmovant, “no objectively reasonable juror could return a verdict for [plaintiff] on the matter that is the subject of the motion for summary judg- ment.” Id. Under Oregon law, possessors of land have a duty “to make their property reasonably safe for their invitees.” Hughes v. Wilson, 345 Or 491, 497, 199 P3d 305 (2008). Hence, possessors must “exercise due care to discover con- ditions on the premises that create an unreasonable risk of harm to invitees or warn them of the risk so as to enable them to avoid the harm.” Hagler v. Coastal Farm Holdings, Inc., 354 Or 132, 141, 309 P3d 1073 (2013). The issue before us is whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favor- able to plaintiff, any reasonable juror could find that the parking block, along with collateral factors, created an unreasonable risk of harm to plaintiff. When determining the existence of an unreasonable risk of harm, courts may consider collateral factors such as the time of the accident, the weather, visual obstructions, structural flaws, and any history of similar prior incidents. Glorioso v. Ness, 191 Or App 637, 644, 83 P3d 914, rev den, 336 Or 657 (2004). A plaintiff need not prove that the condi- tion was unreasonably dangerous to establish that it posed an unreasonable risk of harm. See Ault v. Del Var Properties, 94 Akin v. ROIC Oregon, LLC LLC, 281 Or App 840, 846, 383 P3d 867 (2016), rev den, 361 Or 311 (2017) (distinguishing an unreasonably danger- ous condition from a condition that poses an unreasonable risk of harm and holding that a deceptively level appear- ance—i.e., the unexpected location of an uneven pavement edge—along with nearby distractions presented a genuine question of material fact for a jury). The trial court correctly determined that plain- tiff failed to present sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact. The parking block had been prop- erly installed and placed in an expected location (i.e., at the head of a parking space). The parking block was marked with bright yellow vertical stripes, illustrating the height of the block and creating contrast against the black pave- ment. Aside from that, plaintiff presented no evidence of inadequate lighting, slippery conditions, or a history of prior accidents involving the parking block. Plaintiff’s declaration stated that her attention was focused on the curb, the side- walk, and the railing, but it did not state that the parking block was not visible. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment. Affirmed.