Armstrong v. Best Buy (2003), 99 Ohio St.3d 79, 2003-Ohio-4693 - Open and Obvious Defense
Plaintiff tripped and fell over the bracket of a shopping cart guardrail when entering through the exit doors of defendant’s store. The Supreme Court of Ohio upheld summary judgment for defendant and reaffirmed the open and obvious doctrine as a viable defense in Ohio. Because the open and obvious nature of a hazard itself serves as a warning, a landowner owes no duty of care to individuals lawfully on the premises who encounter the hazard. The defense is a complete bar to recovery.
Hake v. Delpine, 20030-Ohio-1591 - Open and Obvious Defense
A property owner owes no duty to light a walkway, and if the owner so chooses to light a walkway, the property owner owes no duty to provide adequate lighting. Darkness is always a warning of danger, thus an unlit walkway is an open and obvious danger of which the property owner has no duty to warn an invitee.
Collins v. McDonald’s Corporation, 2004-Ohio-4074 - Open and Obvious Defense
Plaintiff sued a McDonald’s franchise after tripping in a hole in the sidewalk on the restaurants property. Plaintiff claimed he never saw the hole because he was distracted by other patrons and their presence kept him from observing the hole. The court of appeals held summary judgment in favor of McDonald’s was improper as plaintiff’s obstructed view was due to factors beyond his control, and the court felt plaintiff did not have a duty to continually look downward to avoid any hazards on the ground. The court concluded it was for a jury to determine whether the condition in question was indeed open and obvious.
Ryan v. Guan, 2004-Ohio-4032 - Open and Obvious Defense
Plaintiff fell on a curb ramp while walking to the defendant’s restaurant. Plaintiff contended the ramp was steeper than what was allowed for by the applicable building code. The court of appeals upheld summary judgment in favor of the restaurant, finding the slope of the ramp was an open and obvious condition, even though the exact degree of slope was unknown. It was open and obvious to patrons that there was a slope to the ramp, therefore this did not constitute a hidden danger.
Oliver v. Leaf & Vine, 2005-Ohio-1910 - Open and Obvious Defense
Plaintiff sued a restaurant after falling while leaving her table. The table was on a platform approximately eleven inches above the floor. There were no handrails or signs indicating any difference in height. The appellate court upheld summary judgment in favor of the landlord, on the basis this difference in height was an open and obvious condition.
Brown v. Classic Ventures Food Division, Inc., 2005-Ohio-112 - Open and Obvious Defense
While driving in the defendant’s parking lot the plaintiffs struck a six foot long section of curb which was painted yellow. The Court of Appeals held a barrier such as this was open and obvious as to both motorists and pedestrians.
Terakedis v. Lin Family Limited Partnership, 2005-Ohio-3985 - Open and Obvious Defense
Plaintiff slipped and fell on a wooden ramp while exiting a building. He claims anti-slip strips on the ramp had been worn away and no longer provided any traction, leading to a dangerous condition. Summary judgment was upheld in favor of the property owner as this condition was open and obvious and there was nothing preventing plaintiff from observing the actual condition of the strips.
Armentrout v. Meyer’s Garden Center & Landscaping, Inc., 2005-Ohio-5901 - Open and Obvious Defense
Plaintiff tripped and fell at a shopping center, due to a black vinyl strip dividing a landscaped area from a walkway. The appellate court held this condition was open and obvious and therefore summary judgment in favor of the landscaping company was proper.
Raj v. Burkhardt, 2003-Ohio-245 - “Two Inch Rule”
The plaintiff was injured when walking between two medical buildings due to an irregular surface difference between two adjoining pieces of concrete of approximately one and one quarter inches. While the “two inch” rule in Ohio, which provides that a difference in elevation in a sidewalk less than two inches is insubstantial, as a matter of law has been modified in that it now creates a rebuttable presumption that this less than two inch difference is insubstantial as a matter of law, it may be rebutted by a showing of attendant circumstances. The court of appeals held type of premise involved and the particular traits of invitees are not attendant circumstances that render the defect substantial.
Blain v. Cigna Corp., 2003-Ohio-4022 - “Two-Inch Rule”
Plaintiff was injured when she tripped on uneven pavement while entering a retail store. The parties did not dispute the fact that the difference in elevation between the pavement tile and the surrounding ground measured less than two inches. The trial court granted summary judgment in defendant’s favor based on the Ohio Supreme Court’s promulgation of the so-called “two-inch rule,” which provides a difference in elevation in a sidewalk or walkway, which is less than two inches, is insubstantial as a matter of law absent attendant circumstances. On appeal, plaintiff argued defendant’s prior knowledge of the defect constituted an attendant circumstance creating a jury question regarding negligence. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Court of Appeals declined to adopt the rule that an owner’s prior knowledge of a defect could create an attendant circumstance. Here, the court limited the scope of attendant circumstances to that which would “divert the attention of the pedestrian, significantly enhance the danger of the defect, and contribute to the fall.” Defendant’s prior knowledge, the court said, “neither increased the dangerousness of the defect nor played any role in appellant’s fall.” Therefore, since the difference in elevation was less than two inches and plaintiff was unable to offer evidence of an attendant circumstance that would have increased the dangerousness of the situation, summary judgment was proper.
Greenwald v. Maple Side Farms, Inc., 2004-Ohio-111 - Inadequate Lighting
Plaintiff fell while leaving the defendant’s restaurant. He claims his fall was caused by inadequate lighting. The Court rejected plaintiff’s claims, finding there was no evidence the restaurant owed him a duty to illuminate its parking area.
Maier v. Northern Ohio Food Terminal, 2005-Ohio-5342 - Duty to Illuminate
A delivery driver sued a business and their landlord after falling on their premises, alleging they had a duty to illuminate their parking lot. The Court of Appeals disagreed, noting among other things that darkness was an open and obvious condition.
Fawley v. Kings Island, 2004-Ohio-4312 - Duty in Wooded Areas
Plaintiff fell in a hole at a campground at Kings Island. Summary judgment in favor of the park was upheld as there was no evidence the park had notice of the hole. Additionally, the court emphasized the fact the area in question was rustic, and by its nature would have dips, holes, and contours in the ground. The court also rejected plaintiff’s contention that the hole was concealed by grass.
Nuemeier v. Lima, 2005-Ohio-5376 - Minor Imperfection
Plaintiff sued the City of Lima after slipping and falling on a sunken parking lot sewer grate. The Court of Appeals upheld summary judgment in favor of the City on the basis that the sunken condition of the grate, along with the slight disrepair of the surrounding area, were minor imperfections and did not trigger any duty to plaintiff.
Pine v. Hall, 2005-Ohio-3488 - Trivial Defects
Plaintiff sued the defendant landlord after falling on a flight of stairs. Plaintiff contended the carpeting was worn and defective, thereby posing an unsafe condition. The appellate court disagreed and upheld summary judgment in favor of the landlord as the only evidence was that there were slight rips and tears in the carpet and those were nothing more than a trivial defect.
Conver v. EKH Co., 2003-Ohio-5033 - Duty to an Invitee
Estate of a limousine passenger who suffered fatal injuries after exiting a limousine to use an ATM and then venturing off into the dark to a stairwell to relieve herself brought action against the bank, limousine service and limousine driver for negligence and breach of contract. Summary judgment motion of all defendants was granted. Passenger was a trespasser on bank’s premises after venturing off in the dark to find an area to relieve herself. Thus the bank owed her only a duty to refrain from willful and/or wanton conduct. The limousine service was a private carrier and owed only a duty to exercise reasonable ordinary care which did not extend to time passengers exited limousine to use ATM or to relieve themselves. The limousine driver had no duty to warn passengers of darkened stairwell on bank premises and did not breach contract by failing to prevent passenger’s accident.
Hensley v. Salamone, 2005-Ohio-187 - Exceeding the Scope of Invitation
Plaintiff entered the defendant’s barn, with the defendant’s permission, to get a piece of equipment. While in the barn plaintiff decided to go up into the loft to look at other items, and while up there he fell through the floor. The defendant argued the plaintiff was no longer an invitee when he was up in the loft as he exceeded the scope of his invitation. The Court of Appeals agreed and found the plaintiff was only a licensee, and therefore the defendant, even if negligent, had no liability, as the only duty owed to a licensee is to refrain from willful or wantonly injuring them.
Scheetz v. Kentwood, Inc., 152 Ohio App.3d 20 - Slip and Fall
Plaintiff was injured when she tripped over a ramp that provided access to a restaurant for disabled individuals. Plaintiff alleged negligence in failing to provide adequate lighting and alleged the construction of the ramp violated provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The court held the restaurant had no duty to provide adequate lighting in its parking lot as a matter of law. Further, the court held the plaintiff not only failed to identify the alleged flaw in the ramp but also failed to show this alleged deficiency was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries.
Lopez v. Dave’s Supermarket, Inc., 2003-Ohio-1350 - Premises Liability
Plaintiff brought suit against grocery store for injuries she sustained in tripping on a box sitting on the floor in an adjacent cashier’s stall as plaintiff was attempting to walk around a shopping cart. Defendant argued plaintiff became a licensee, rather than remain an invitee, when she stepped into the cashier’s stall because this was an area for employees and not the general public. The court ultimately determined that plaintiff remained an invitee, despite her entrance into the cashier’s stall, because defendant did nothing to prevent its customers from entering vacant cashier’s stalls and customers freely entered those areas while they were passing through the checkout aisles.
Lonaker v. Cincinnati Youth Sports, 2004-Ohio-5993 - Burden of Proof
Plaintiff slipped and fell at the defendant’s bingo hall. She claims her fall was caused by a plastic strip, which was used to bind bingo books together. An eyewitness testified the strip plaintiff slipped on fell from a packet of bingo books plaintiff herself was carrying. Plaintiff could not establish whether or not it was her strap that caused her to fall. The court of appeals upheld summary judgment in favor of the defendant, on the basis the plaintiff’s claims were based on speculation.
Kidder v. The Kroger Company, 2004-Ohio-4261 - Slip on Water
Plaintiff slipped and fell on a puddle of clear water at a Kroger store. The court of appeals rejected Kroger’s claim that the puddle was an open and obvious condition. The court emphasized that while it happened immediately after plaintiff turned a corner at the end of the isle, she therefore had no opportunity to notice the hazard. It was also noted the water was clear, thereby making it extremely difficult to detect.
Scruggs v. Cherry Tree Village, 2005-Ohio-1167 - Duty to Protect
Plaintiff sued an apartment complex after being attacked on the premises. In upholding summary judgment in favor of the defendant, the court noted the foreseeability of a criminal attack depended upon the knowledge of the landlord, as established by the totality of the circumstances. Although plaintiff identified five different safety precautions the landlord should have undertaken, there was still no evidence presented that an attack of this nature was reasonably foreseeable.
Graham v. Golden Arch Realty Corp., 2003-Ohio-5264 - Slip and Fall
Plaintiff was injured when she slipped and fell on a patch of ice in a restaurant’s parking lot. The restaurant had no duty to warn or protect an invitee concerning the patch of ice as ice is a natural accumulation. Where the top portion of a natural accumulation of ice and snow is plowed, the ice that remains is still a natural accumulation.
Mubarak v. Giant Eagle, Inc., 2004-Ohio-6011 - Natural Accumulation Defense
Plaintiff claimed she was struck by a falling piece of ice while exiting a grocery store. She contended the ice fell off of the store’s illuminated sign. She contended the ice in question was not a natural accumulation as it was warmed by the sign and refreezing. The court of appeals rejected plaintiff’s claims on the basis that thawing and refreezing is part of the natural cycle of winter. The court also noted plaintiff did not present any evidence regarding the actual properties of the lighting system which would somehow confirm her theory.
Couture v. Oak Hills Rentals, Ltd., 2004-Ohio-5237 - Slip on Ice
Plaintiff claimed she slipped and fell on “black ice” at the defendant’s car wash. She contended the ice was a non-natural accumulation as it stemmed from runoff water from the car wash. The court of appeals upheld summary judgment in favor of the car wash, finding the car wash took reasonable precautions to present the accumulation of ice, had no prior notice of the ice, and moreover found the ice to be an open and obvious condition.
Lehman v. Cracker Barrel, 2005-Ohio-370 - Snow and Ice
In response to bad weather Cracker Barrel salted the sidewalks outside the restaurant. This resulted in the ice melting and then later refreezing. Plaintiff contended this created “black ice” and therefore the ice was no longer a natural accumulation. The Court of Appeals disagreed and held the efforts of Cracker Barrel to remove snow and ice from the sidewalk did not convert a natural accumulation into a non-natural one, and as a result there was no obligation on the part of the restaurant to remove any black ice which was present.
Lawrence v. Jiffy Print, Inc., 2005-Ohio-4043 - Snow and Ice
Plaintiff slipped and fell on ice on a walkway. The ice allegedly came from water which leaked or dripped from an overhang and then froze. The water in the overhang itself was the result of a natural accumulation. There was no evidence presented that either the roof or the overhang was defective. As a result the appellate court held the ice on the walk was a natural accumulation and that the property owner had no duty to remove it.
Rees v. Cleveland Indians Baseball Company, Inc., 2004-Ohio-6112 - Assumption of Risk
While attending a Cleveland Indians baseball game, plaintiff was struck in the face by a broken bat which entered the stands. The defendant argued her claims were barred by the doctrine of primary assumption of risk. Most of the case law developed with regard to baseball games pertained to baseballs as opposed to broken bats. The court of appeals upheld summary judgment in favor of the team, noting in part foreseeability of a broken bat entering the stands, along with plaintiff’s familiarity of the ballpark, the game of baseball itself, and the risks associated with her particular seats.
