Armstrong v. Lakes Golf & Country Club, Inc.
98 N.E.3d 328
Ohio Ct. App. 9th2018Background
- Scott Armstrong (invitee/member) fell into an uncovered valve box near the patio and parking lot at Lakes Golf & Country Club on Sept. 19, 2014, injuring his knee.
- Armstrong had taken a shortcut across a mulched bed rather than use the paved, lit walkway; he admitted he was not looking at the ground and was focused on his car/parking activity when he stepped into the hole.
- Armstrong testified the valve box cover was off and lying beside the hole; photos taken the next day show the open box visible from several feet away.
- Club personnel testified no employees had been working on that valve box shortly before the incident and the area was not used as an official walkway; mowing had slowed with the season.
- Plaintiffs sued for premises liability (negligence) and loss of consortium; defendant moved for summary judgment arguing the hazard was open and obvious.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for the club; the Fifth District affirmed, holding the open-and-obvious doctrine barred liability and no attendant circumstances created a fact issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the uncovered valve box was an open and obvious hazard (duty) | Armstrong: attendant circumstances (club knowledge, parking lot activity distraction, low light, lid color blending with grass) made the hazard not open and obvious | Lakes: hole was observable; invitee should have seen/avoided it; normal parking activity and daylight do not create an attendant circumstance | Court: Valve box was open and obvious as a matter of law; no duty owed, summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether attendant circumstances precluded application of the open-and-obvious doctrine | Armstrong: attendant circumstances distracted him and enhanced danger | Lakes: alleged circumstances (traffic, lighting, color) were ordinary, not unusual, and did not reduce ordinary care | Court: Attendant-circumstance exception not met—traffic and partial daylight are normal; darkness/lighting not a special circumstance; color irrelevant because box was uncovered |
Key Cases Cited
- Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc., 30 Ohio St.3d 35 (Ohio 1987) (standard for appellate review of summary judgment)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1996) (de novo review of summary judgment)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (moving party’s summary judgment burden)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (reciprocal burdens on summary judgment motions)
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (Ohio 1977) (Civ.R.56 standards)
- Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy, Inc., 18 Ohio St.3d 203 (Ohio 1985) (landowner duty to invitees and duty to warn of concealed dangers)
- Sidle v. Humphrey, 13 Ohio St.2d 45 (Ohio 1968) (open-and-obvious doctrine for invitees)
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (Ohio 2003) (open-and-obvious hazards relieve landowner of duty)
- Simmers v. Bentley Constr. Co., 64 Ohio St.3d 642 (Ohio 1992) (rationale for open-and-obvious rule)
- Gladon v. Greater Cleveland Reg. Transit Auth., 75 Ohio St.3d 312 (Ohio 1996) (premises liability duty depends on visitor status)