Betty Webb ventured out in the rain to shop at a Dick's Sporting good store. Upon arrival, Webb noticed puddles in the parking lot and proceeded cautiously to the store's entrance. As she entered the store, she stepped onto floor mats that Dick's had placed in the entryway to soak up water tracked in by customers. Webb saw that the floor mats had shifted from their customary parallel formation into a "V" shape. A visible pool of water had formed in the center of the "V". According to Webb, the mats were wet and spongy. There were no signs at the front of the store to warn customers that the floor could be wet. A crowd of other customers entering the store at the same time surrounded Webb. In an attempt to avoid the visible pool of water in the "V," Webb stepped from one of the mats to a tile that appeared to her to be dry but was, in fact, wet. As she stepped onto the tile, she slipped and fell forward, injuring her knees, arms, and shoulders. a store employeewitnessed the fall.

Webb later filed a negligence lawsuit against Dick's in a Kentucky trial court. In her deposition, she stated that there were a number of fellow customers entering the store at the same time, which made it difficult for her to avoid the pool without pausing and waiting for people to pass. Webb acknowledged that her shoes were wet and that the lighting in the store was bright. Webb also admitted that if Dick's had placed a sign near the entrance to warn of a wet floor, the warning probably would not have dissuaded her from entering the store.

Dick's moved for summary judgment , asserting that the wet floor was an open-and-obvious condition that eliminated any duty potentially owed to Webb. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of Dick's. Webb appealed to the Kentucky Court of Appeals, which reversed the lower court's decision after concluding that according to a precedent decision from the Supreme Court of Kentucky, a property owner may still owe a duty of reasonable care to persons lawfullyon the premises even when a danger on the property is open and obvious. The court of Appeals held that Dick's had a duty to take reasonable steps to eliminate or reduce the open-and-obvioushazard and that whether Dick's satisfied its duty was a question for the jury. Dick's appealed to the Supreme Court of Kentucky. How did the Supreme Court rule? Did Dick's owe the duty identified by the Court of Appeals?

---

please help me respond to this with three paragraphs, its much needed help. take whatever time, thanks. paragraph is counted as 3 full sentences or more.

Each response will be graded according to the following rubric:

Is the answer correct as it discusses the relevant law?

complete analysis, including alternate scenarios, additional thoughts, and direct correlation between the answer and the question?

well organized?

enough content to demonstrate understanding of the topic?

spelling and grammar, and have good sentence structure?