2014 Ohio 4501
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- On October 7, 2009, Theresa Bauermeister left Local Roots restaurant and fell at the bottom of an exterior stairway leading to a parking lot, sustaining injuries.
- Bauermeister sued the property owners/operators for negligence (filed October 3, 2011), alleging uneven/tilted asphalt at the bottom step, irregular riser heights, poor illumination, and municipal-code violations.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing the hazard was open and obvious, the steps were not negligently maintained, and there was no duty to light the area.
- Bauermeister submitted a deposition and an architect’s affidavit describing uneven/asymmetrical risers, a sloped asphalt landing, and a handrail that did not extend beyond the last step.
- The trial court granted summary judgment, finding the condition open and obvious and barring recovery; Bauermeister appealed.
- The appellate court affirmed, concluding the open-and-obvious doctrine negated defendants’ duty as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the defect (uneven/tilted asphalt and irregular risers) was open and obvious | Bauermeister: genuine factual dispute; jury should decide; condition violated building code and was not latent | Defendants: condition was visible, plaintiff had previously traversed it, darkness does not negate obviousness; no duty to warn or to light | Held: condition was open and obvious as a matter of law; duty negated and summary judgment proper |
| Whether public-safety / building-code arguments preclude application of open-and-obvious doctrine | Bauermeister: applying the doctrine contradicts public policy and harms safety | Defendants: public-safety arguments were not raised below and do not override open-and-obvious rule | Held: appellate court declined new arguments not raised in trial court; public-safety claim unavailable on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Zimmerman v. Tompkins, 75 Ohio St.3d 447 (explains Civ.R. 56 summary-judgment standard)
- Parsons v. Fleming, 68 Ohio St.3d 509 (summary-judgment standard and viewing evidence for nonmoving party)
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (summary-judgment principles)
- Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc., 30 Ohio St.3d 35 (appellate review stands in shoes of trial court for summary judgment)
- Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy, Inc., 18 Ohio St.3d 203 (duty of ordinary care to business invitees)
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (establishes open-and-obvious doctrine as bar to duty to warn)
- Simmers v. Bentley Constr. Co., 64 Ohio St.3d 642 (open-and-obvious hazard serves as its own warning)
- Jackson v. Kings Island, 58 Ohio St.2d 357 (landowner’s duty to warn of latent dangers)
- Feldman v. Howard, 10 Ohio St.2d 189 (existence of duty is threshold question in negligence)