2019 Ohio 3323
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- On Dec. 17, 2016, plaintiff Joseph Bakies slipped when exiting his car in the Meijer parking lot after driving from IHOP; he alleged he may have slipped on black ice and suffered a shoulder injury.
- Meijer owned/occupied the premises; Meijer contracted with RSM for snow/ice services, and RSM subcontracted with RBK (a snow removal contractor) whose owner, Knowlton, performed services at the store.
- Bakies sued Meijer, RSM, and RBK for negligence; defendants moved for summary judgment arguing no duty (natural accumulation/no-duty winter rule), open-and-obvious danger, and lack of contractual duty to plaintiff.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for all defendants; plaintiff appealed raising (1) contractual/duty-as-third-party-beneficiary, (2) independent-contractor liability/unnatural accumulation, and (3) superior-knowledge/express-contract exceptions to the no-duty winter rule.
- The appellate court reviewed de novo and affirmed: it found no genuine issue as to (a) contractual duty (no expert evidence of industry standard or breach), (b) the ice was naturally accumulated (no evidence of man-made cause), and (c) no superior knowledge or concealed hazard by Meijer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff is an intended third‑party beneficiary of the Meijer–RSM agreement creating a contractual duty to him | Bakies argued the Agreement’s warranty language ("will run to Meijer and its customers") makes him an intended beneficiary and creates a duty to maintain the lot to industry standards | Meijer/RSM argued plaintiff is at best an incidental beneficiary and plaintiff provided no evidence of applicable industry standards or breach | Court: Even assuming plaintiff was an intended beneficiary, he offered no expert proof of the industry standard or breach, so no triable issue on contractual/tort duty |
| Whether Meijer (owner/occupier) had a duty to remove/warn about the ice under exceptions to the no‑duty winter rule | Bakies claimed three exceptions applied: (1) active negligence creating an unnatural accumulation, (2) express contractual assumption of duty, and (3) Meijer’s superior knowledge of a condition substantially more dangerous than normal | Meijer argued the ice was a natural accumulation (black ice), the no‑duty winter rule applies, and no evidence supported the exceptions | Court: Ice was natural (black ice); plaintiff produced no evidence of unnatural cause, no expert proving contractual standards, and no superior knowledge or concealed hazard — exceptions do not apply; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether RSM and RBK (independent contractors) breached a duty by creating an unnatural accumulation | Bakies argued the contractors’ actions created an unnatural, more dangerous accumulation increasing risk | RSM/RBK argued there was no unnatural accumulation and contractors exercised ordinary care; no evidence they caused the condition | Court: No genuine dispute that ice was a natural accumulation; no evidence contractors created an unnatural condition, so no contractor liability |
Key Cases Cited
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (2003) (shopkeeper duty to warn of latent hazards; open‑and‑obvious doctrine explained)
- Simmers v. Bentley Constr. Co., 64 Ohio St.3d 642 (1992) (owner/occupier owes no duty to warn of open and obvious dangers)
- Brinkman v. Ross, 68 Ohio St.3d 82 (1993) (no‑duty winter rule for natural accumulations of ice/snow)
- Jeswald v. Hutt, 15 Ohio St.2d 224 (1968) (no duty to remove natural accumulations of snow/ice)
- Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy, Inc., 18 Ohio St.3d 203 (1985) (business invitee duty principles)
- Texler v. D.O. Summers Cleaners & Shirt Laundry Co., 81 Ohio St.3d 677 (1998) (elements of negligence: duty, breach, proximate cause)
- Bittinger v. Klotzman, 113 Ohio App.3d 847 (1996) (expert testimony required to establish proper standard for snow/ice removal in commercial parking areas)
- Debie v. Cochran Pharmacy‑Berwick, Inc., 11 Ohio St.2d 38 (1967) (occupier may be liable if a natural accumulation conceals another hazard and occupier had notice)