2014 Ohio 2668
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- On Feb. 13, 2009, Raymond Brock fell and fractured vertebrae exiting a KFC in Dayton; the restaurant was operated by Food, Folks & Fun, Inc. (FFF).
- Schaeffer (engineer) prepared site and ramp plans; Jonah (contractor) supervised site work and built the ramp; Stamp Tech was a subcontractor. Brock sued FFF, Jonah, Stamp Tech, and Schaeffer for negligent design/construction of the handicap ramp.
- Trial court consolidated a related declaratory-judgment action (Hastings Ins.) and later granted summary judgment for Jonah, Schaeffer, Stamp Tech, and FFF; Brock appealed as to Jonah and Schaeffer (FFF later dismissed from appeal).
- Key factual points: the ramp was concrete, bordered by thick yellow striping and handicap signs; Brock testified he did not notice markings and was not disabled at the time.
- Trial court found the ramp was open and obvious/observable and that Jonah (as independent contractor) did not breach ordinary-care duties; it also found Jonah materially deviated from Schaeffer’s design, severing causal connection and absolving Schaeffer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether hazard was open and obvious such that defendants are not liable | Brock: ramp edges blended with parking slab and were hard to perceive from his vantage | Jonah/FFF: ramp was clearly demarcated by yellow lines and signs; plaintiff was inattentive | Court: ramp was observable; plaintiff’s inattention made harm unforeseeable; no breach by Jonah |
| Whether Jonah (independent contractor) breached duty by building non-ADA/ODOT-compliant ramp | Brock: Jonah knowingly built a noncompliant, dangerous ramp | Jonah: even as contractor, ordinary negligence applies; ramp was open and obvious so no breach | Court: open/obvious character relevant to negligence; Jonah owed no duty breach and summary judgment proper |
| Whether Brock may base negligence on ADA noncompliance when he is not disabled | Brock: statutory standards/ADA/ODOT violations support negligence | Defs: statutory protections apply to class the statute protects; Brock was not disabled | Court: plaintiff not in protected class; cannot recover on ADA-based negligence theory |
| Whether Schaeffer is liable despite construction deviations | Brock: Schaeffer’s plans were noncompliant and early involvement makes him liable | Schaeffer: builder’s material deviations broke causal link from plan to injury | Court: Jonah materially altered the design ("cut-in" vs "built-up" ramp); deviations were material and severed causal connection; Schaeffer not liable |
Key Cases Cited
- Simmers v. Bentley Constr. Co., 64 Ohio St.3d 642 (Ohio 1992) (open-and-obvious condition does not automatically absolve independent contractor; its character remains relevant under negligence analysis)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (party moving for summary judgment bears initial burden; nonmoving must show specific facts creating genuine issue)
- Cincinnati Riverfront Coliseum, Inc. v. McNulty Co., 28 Ohio St.3d 333 (Ohio 1986) (engineer/architect may avoid liability where contractor’s deviations are material and break causal link between design and harm)
- Strother v. Hutchinson, 67 Ohio St.2d 282 (Ohio 1981) (elements of negligence: duty, breach, and proximate injury)