Allen v. 5125 Peno, L.L.C.
101 N.E.3d 484
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Carol J. Allen slipped and fell on a "grimy, greasy" 10–12 inch spot on tile upon entering El Jalapeno in January 2013 and sued owner 5125 Peno, LLC for negligence.
- Allen testified she touched the spot after falling, could not identify the substance’s source, and did not know how long it had been on the floor.
- Two family members submitted affidavits saying they had previously observed greasy or slippery floors at the restaurant, but without dates or specific location tying those observations to the incident.
- Restaurant manager Pablo Martinez testified staff mop with bleach daily before opening and that a yellow "wet floor" sign is kept near the entrance; he denied evidence of oil/fat spatters from fajita preparation.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Peno; Allen appealed claiming disputed issues of fact whether Peno created the hazard or had actual/constructive notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff proved defendant created the hazardous substance | Allen: grease from restaurant (e.g., fajitas) caused the slippery spot | Peno: no evidence linking restaurant operations to the specific spot; manager denied spatters occur | Court: No — plaintiff offered only speculation/inference stacking, insufficient for causation |
| Whether defendant had actual notice of the hazard | Allen: staff should have known about recurring greasy floors (family testimony) | Peno: no evidence employees knew of or caused that specific spot that night | Court: No — no direct evidence of actual notice |
| Whether defendant had constructive notice (i.e., substance present long enough to have been discovered) | Allen: prior greasy conditions put defendant on constructive notice | Peno: no evidence how long spot existed; daily cleaning practice reduces inference of notice | Court: No — affidavits too indefinite as to time/location; plaintiff failed to show hazard existed long enough for constructive notice |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate | Allen: facts construed in her favor create genuine issue | Peno: record lacks evidence on causation/notice; entitled to judgment as matter of law | Court: Summary judgment affirmed — no genuine issue of material fact for trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy, Inc., 18 Ohio St.3d 203 (establishes shopkeeper duty of ordinary care to invitees)
- Wallace v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce, 96 Ohio St.3d 266 (elements required to prove negligence)
- Johnson v. Wagner Provision Co., 141 Ohio St. 584 (slip-and-fall plaintiff must prove one of three conditions: defendant caused substance, had notice, or substance present long enough for constructive notice)
- Boles v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 153 Ohio St. 381 (negligence will not be presumed; speculation/inference stacking insufficient)
- Presley v. Norwood, 36 Ohio St.2d 29 (framework for constructive notice inquiry)