Boston v. A & B Sales, Inc.
2011 Ohio 6427
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Slip-and-fall at A&B Sales, Inc. premises where water from a car wash accumulated in front of the service entrance.
- Plaintiff Deanna Boston slipped inside the doorway after entering through the wet service entrance; incident date August 9, 2007.
- Boston claimed the inside hallway water was not open and obvious and that attendant circumstances concealed it.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment arguing the water was open and obvious and that Boston had actual knowledge of the premises.
- Trial court granted summary judgment citing open-and-obvious water as a matter of law.
- Appeals court reversed, finding genuine issues of material fact due to ambiguous testimony and poor lighting suggesting attendant circumstances could prevent discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the water inside the doorway was open and obvious as a matter of law | Boston argues attendant circumstances may create a factual issue | A&B Sales contends the hazard was open and obvious; duty not triggered | Issue for the court or jury? Open and obvious may be fact-dependent; reversible error to grant summary judgment at this stage. |
| Whether attendant circumstances precluded discovery of the hazard | Ambience lighting could hinder recognition of water | No duty unless hazard not observable | There is a genuine issue of material fact about attendant circumstances. |
| Whether Boston had actual knowledge of the hazard due to prior visits | Knowledge unlikely given limited prior exposure | Actual knowledge and familiarity negate duty | Question of fact remains about knowledge of the interior hazard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mussivand v. David, 45 Ohio St.3d 314 (Ohio 1989) (duty question is legal; open-and-obvious may be fact-dependent)
- Parsons v. Lawson Co., 57 Ohio App.3d 49 (Ohio App. 1989) (open-and-obvious may involve genuine issues of fact)
- Henry v. Dollar General Store, 2003-Ohio-206 (Ohio 2003) (duty is legal; open-and-obvious may be fact-driven)
- Klauss v. Glassman, 2005-Ohio-1306 (Ohio 2005) (open-and-obvious may be fact question when reasonable minds could differ)
- Louderback v. McDonald's Restaurant, 2005-Ohio-3926 (Ohio 2005) (lighting and vantage issues can create material facts about open-and-obvious)