In Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79, 2003 Ohio 2573, 788 N.E.2d 1088, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld the viability of the open and obvious doctrine and explained that it is the open and obvious nature of the hazard itself that acts as a warning to one who encounters it. Thus, a business or premises owner owes no duty of care regarding an open and obvious danger. Armstrong, supra. The Supreme Court in Armstrong explained the manner in which this doctrine is to be applied, stating, "We reiterate that when courts apply the rule, they must focus on the fact that the doctrine relates to the threshold issue of duty. By focusing on the duty prong of negligence, the rule properly considers the nature of the dangerous condition itself, as opposed to the nature of the plaintiff's conduct in encountering it. The fact that a plaintiff was unreasonable in choosing to encounter the danger is not what relieves the property owner of liability. Rather, it is the fact that the condition itself is so obvious that it absolves the property owner from taking any further action to protect the plaintiff." Id. at P13. Thus, once a condition is found to be open and obvious, the inquiry into negligence on the part of the owner or operator of a business comes to an end. In Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79, 2003 Ohio 2573, 788 N.E.2d 1088, the Court held the emphasis in analyzing open and obvious danger cases relates to the threshold issue of duty. "The rule properly considers the nature of the dangerous condition itself, as opposed to the nature of the plaintiff's conduct in encountering it. The fact that a plaintiff was unreasonable in choosing to encounter the danger is not what relieves the property owner of liability. Rather, it is the fact that the condition itself is so obvious that it absolves the property owner from taking any further action to protect the plaintiff." Id. at 82.