In Ward v. K Mart Corp., 136 Ill. 2d 132, 149-51, 554 N.E.2d 223, 143 Ill. Dec. 288 (1990), the plaintiff was carrying a large bathroom mirror, which was five feet long and approximately one-and-a-half feet wide. Id. at 138. In that case, the Supreme Court held that "the inquiry is whether the defendant should reasonably anticipate injury to those entrants on his premises who are generally exercising reasonable care for their own safety, but who may reasonably be expected to be distracted, as when carrying large bundles, or forgetful of the condition after having momentarily encountered it." Id. at 152. The Illinois Supreme Court held that the existence of an open and obvious condition is not an automatic or per se bar to the finding of a legal duty on the part of the owner or occupier of the premises. Ward, 136 Ill. 2d at 145. In Ward, the Illinois Supreme Court also adopted section 343A of the Restatement which states an open and obvious exception to the duty of care set forth in section 343. LaFever v. Kemlite Co., a Division of Dyrothech Industries, Inc., 185 Ill. 2d 380, 390, 706 N.E.2d 441, 235 Ill. Dec. 886. Section 343A provides in relevant part: A possessor of land is not liable to his invitees for physical harm caused to them by any activity or condition on the land whose danger is known or obvious to them, unless the possessor should anticipate the harm despite such knowledge or obviousness. Restatement (Second) of Torts section 343A (1965). Thus, under the open and obvious exception, a landowner is not required to give precautions or warnings where such dangers or risks are evident in order to exercise the duty of reasonable care to ward invitees unless the facts indicate the landowner should have anticipated the harm despite such knowledge or obviousness. Ward, 136 Ill.2d at 149-51.