2018 Ohio 93
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Carla Butler (pro se) sued Cleveland Clinic after tripping and falling on a raised concrete-and-grass island near the emergency room entrance on October 2, 2015, alleging darkness and negligent maintenance caused serious leg injuries.
- Butler had earlier escorted a neighbor in a wheelchair across the lot via a flat walkway cutting through the island; after returning the wheelchair she took a shorter route by walking on the island itself and later fell when stepping off the grassy area.
- Butler reported the incident months later and did not mention poor lighting or a specific hazard in her reports to Clinic personnel.
- Cleveland Clinic moved for summary judgment, arguing the raised island and darkness were open and obvious and thus relieved it of a duty to warn; Clinic also questioned causation based on medical opinion.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Cleveland Clinic after Butler failed to file an opposition brief; the court concluded no genuine issue of material fact existed and Clinic was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the raised concrete/grass island and poor lighting were defects creating a duty to warn | Butler: island was a hazardous, negligently maintained condition and the area was dark so she could not see the hazard | Clinic: the island and darkness were open and obvious; Clinic had no duty to warn or to illuminate the private lot | Court: condition and darkness were open and obvious; Clinic owed no duty and summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether R.C. 3781.06/other facts created a triable issue or exception to open-and-obvious rule | Butler: statute (public buildings must be safe) and poor lighting made condition defective | Clinic: statute not raised below and does not show the island was defective; attendant-circumstances exception not met | Court: Butler didn’t preserve statute argument; darkness is predictable and not an attendant circumstance here; no exception applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (2003) (open-and-obvious doctrine bars duty to warn when hazard is discoverable)
- Simmers v. Bentley Constr. Co., 64 Ohio St.3d 642 (1992) (open-and-obvious hazards serve as their own warning)
- Sidle v. Humphrey, 13 Ohio St.2d 45 (1968) (foundational Ohio premises-liability doctrine)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (1996) (summary-judgment de novo standard)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (movant’s initial summary-judgment burden and nonmovant’s response requirements)
- Murphy v. Reynoldsburg, 65 Ohio St.3d 356 (1992) (doubts on summary judgment resolved in nonmovant’s favor)
- Jeswald v. Hutt, 15 Ohio St.2d 224 (1968) (darkness is a warning of danger and generally cannot be disregarded)