2019 Ohio 3617
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- On March 22, 2017, Anderson slipped and fell in a lobby restroom of a Suburban-owned office building serviced by Jancoa; he felt a wet substance on the back of his sport coat after the fall but did not inspect the floor or identify the substance.
- Anderson filed a negligence suit in April 2018 alleging appellees created or had notice of the hazard; appellees deposed Anderson in July 2018.
- Appellees moved for summary judgment in October 2018; Anderson obtained extensions to file responses and submitted brief memoranda in December 2018 stating discovery was ongoing and depositions of two building-maintenance witnesses were scheduled for January 2019.
- Anderson did not invoke Civ.R. 56(F), submit affidavits, or provide evidentiary materials opposing summary judgment; appellees argued he had no evidence of the hazard’s cause or of defendants’ notice/creation.
- The trial court granted summary judgment, finding Anderson could not show what caused the fall or that appellees created or had (actual or constructive) notice of the hazard; this court affirmed.
- A dissent argued the summary-judgment ruling was premature because scheduled depositions (relevant to notice/creation) were cut off and the court should have allowed discovery to proceed before deciding dispositive motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by deciding summary judgment before plaintiff completed discovery under Civ.R. 56(F) | Anderson argued the ruling was premature because depositions of maintenance witnesses were scheduled and necessary to oppose summary judgment (implicitly sought more discovery) | Appellees argued Anderson never formally sought relief under Civ.R. 56(F), submitted no affidavits, had been granted extensions, and provided no reason why depositions could not be completed earlier | No abuse of discretion; court may rule where nonmoving party fails to follow Civ.R. 56(F) or show why discovery was unavailable |
| Whether Anderson identified the cause of his fall sufficiently to defeat summary judgment | Anderson contended he need not identify the precise chemical nature of the substance—only that a wet substance on the floor caused the slip | Appellees argued Anderson could not identify what caused the fall and therefore cannot establish negligence | Anderson's testimony that he slipped on something and later felt a non-water wet substance on his coat was sufficient to infer the cause of the fall (identification requirement met) |
| Whether there was evidence defendants created or had actual or constructive notice of the hazard | Anderson planned to use depositions of cleaning staff/supervisor to show creation or notice | Appellees pointed to lack of evidence in the record showing creation or notice by Suburban or Jancoa | No evidence of creation or actual/constructive notice in the summary-judgment record; summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy, Inc., 18 Ohio St.3d 203 (1985) (business invitee duty; no duty to warn of open-and-obvious hazards)
- Stamper v. Middletown Hosp. Assn., 65 Ohio App.3d 65 (1989) (plaintiff must identify or explain reason for fall in slip-and-fall case)
- Cleveland Athletic Ass'n Co. v. Bending, 129 Ohio St. 152 (1934) (requirement that plaintiff identify cause of fall)
- Tucker v. Webb Corp., 4 Ohio St.3d 121 (1983) (trial court must allow necessary discovery prior to summary-judgment disposition; preliminary-inquiry requirement)
- Benjamin v. Deffet Rentals, Inc., 66 Ohio St.2d 86 (1981) (party may use Civ.R. 56(F) to obtain discovery needed to oppose summary judgment)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (summary-judgment burden-shifting framework for movant and nonmovant)
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64 (1978) (standards for summary judgment)
- Fiske v. Rooney, 126 Ohio App.3d 649 (1998) (reversible error where party denied relevant discovery when depositions were scheduled)