2020 Ohio 2760
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background:
- On April 13, 2016, Thomas Bartlett (first-time customer) went to a Tan Pro salon for a spray tan; store manager Victoria Foster escorted him to the spray-tan room.
- Bartlett says he waited 10–15 minutes in the lobby after seeing a prior customer leave the spray-tan room, then slipped on a shiny/oily fluid on a rubber mat in the room and fractured his femur.
- Foster testified Tan Pro policy required cleaning and inspection of spray-tan rooms after each use (including wiping the mat); she claimed the room was "spotless" but admitted she moved the chair and cleaned the mat before photographing the scene; cleaning logs for the date were discarded.
- Tan Pro moved for summary judgment arguing it did not create or have notice of a hazardous condition and that any hazard was open and obvious; the trial court granted summary judgment for Tan Pro.
- The Sixth District reversed in part: it held that (1) there was no evidence the spray machine itself created the hazard or gave Tan Pro notice, but (2) genuine issues of material fact exist about whether Tan Pro breached its duty to reasonably inspect/clean the room, so summary judgment was improper on that claim; one judge dissented.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Tan Pro create the hazardous condition or have actual/constructive knowledge? | Bartlett: machine (no door) sprays oily mist that would accumulate on mat; Tan Pro knew this hazard. | Tan Pro: no evidence machine created oil; machine has filter; Foster didn’t know spray chemistry; no actual knowledge. | Held: No dispositive evidence machine created hazard or gave Tan Pro knowledge; summary judgment correct as to creation/knowledge theory. |
| Was Tan Pro required to warn of a latent/ concealed danger? | Bartlett: Tan Pro knew rooms could spray oily substance and failed to warn. | Tan Pro: no actual knowledge; no proof of a latent hazard to warn about. | Held: Plaintiff failed to show Tan Pro had actual knowledge; no summary-judgment defeat on this theory. |
| Did Tan Pro breach duty by failing to reasonably inspect/clean (constructive notice)? | Bartlett: Foster may not have cleaned/inspected after prior customer; cleaning logs missing; Bartlett didn’t see anyone re-enter before he was led in. | Tan Pro: uniform policy requires cleaning after every use; Foster testified room was spotless and follows 5-minute cleaning routine. | Held: Genuine dispute of material fact exists whether the room was cleaned/inspected before Bartlett entered; summary judgment improper as to this claim (reversed and remanded). |
| Does the open-and-obvious doctrine bar recovery? | Bartlett: testimony ambiguous; he felt fluid underfoot and saw fluid only after falling. | Tan Pro: hazard was open and obvious; business owes no duty. | Held: Cannot apply open-and-obvious doctrine because factual dispute whether any fluid existed at time of fall; issue for factfinder. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 671 N.E.2d 241 (1996) (appellate standard of review for summary judgment is de novo)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 662 N.E.2d 264 (1996) (burden for party moving for summary judgment and response requirements)
- Mitseff v. Wheeler, 38 Ohio St.3d 112, 526 N.E.2d 798 (1988) (summary judgment procedural standards)
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64, 375 N.E.2d 46 (1978) (summary judgment test articulated)
- Texler v. D.O. Summers Cleaners & Shirt Laundry Co., 81 Ohio St.3d 677, 693 N.E.2d 271 (1998) (elements of negligence: duty, breach, proximate cause, injury)
- Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy, Inc., 18 Ohio St.3d 203, 480 N.E.2d 474 (1985) (business invitee duty to maintain premises in reasonably safe condition)
- Presley v. City of Norwood, 36 Ohio St.2d 29, 303 N.E.2d 81 (1973) (constructive notice: hazard duration or reasonable inspection)
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79, 788 N.E.2d 1088 (2003) (open-and-obvious doctrine bars duty when hazard is obvious)
- Simmers v. Bentley Constr. Co., 64 Ohio St.3d 642, 597 N.E.2d 504 (1992) (open-and-obvious hazard principles)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (materiality standard for summary judgment evidence)