Bonner v. Glassman
2012 Ohio 86
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Bonner injured March 6, 2009 at Marc’s store when stacked water cases toppled and hit him, pushing him into a steel beam; he had shopped there for years and noticed unusually tall stacks.
- Two of three water stacks were notably high; Bonner chose a lower stack to retrieve a case.
- Cases fell after he destabilized the display; he was treated at ER and later sued Marc’s and The American Bottling Co. (ABC) for negligence.
- Marc’s and ABC moved for summary judgment arguing the danger was open and obvious or that they had no notice; Bonner opposed, attaching exhibits.
- Trial court granted summary judgment to both defendants, finding the danger open and obvious; Bonner appealed, and ABC cross-appealed to strike attached exhibits; the appeal was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the hazard was open and obvious as a matter of law | Bonner argues the danger was not open and obvious given attendant circumstances | Marc’s/ABC contend the hazard was open and obvious and no duty to warn arose | Open and obvious; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether attendant circumstances created a genuine fact dispute precluding summary judgment | Bonner asserts attendant circumstances distracted him from recognizing danger | Defendants argue there were no meaningful attendant circumstances | No genuine issue; danger was open and obvious; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (2003-Ohio-2573) (open and obvious doctrine governs duty and warning obligation)
- Summers v. Bentley Constr. Co., 64 Ohio St.3d 642 (1992-Ohio-42) (open and obvious analysis applies to duty of care)
- SidLe v. Humphrey, 13 Ohio St.2d 45 (1968-Ohio-**) (open and obvious doctrine excusing duty when hazard is obvious)
- Carter v. Miles Supermarket, 2010-Ohio-6365 (Cuyahoga App. No. 95024) (affirmed open and obvious rationale in supermarket setting)