2014 Ohio 3891
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Plaintiff Vickie Cage sued Sutherland Building Products after tripping on wrinkles in an entrance floor mat at a Sutherland store on December 27, 2010; complaint alleges negligence in maintaining the rug.
- Security video and depositions show two customers rolled a shopping cart over the mat just before Cage entered, creating the wrinkles.
- Cage testified she saw the mat and the wrinkles as she entered and attempted to step over them before falling.
- Store manager Roger Guhl averred the wrinkles were caused by the other customers and there was no evidence the store knew of the condition beforehand.
- Sutherland moved for summary judgment arguing the condition was open and obvious and the store lacked notice; the trial court granted summary judgment for Sutherland.
- On appeal, the Tenth District affirmed, holding the hazard was open and obvious and thus Sutherland owed no duty to warn or protect.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sutherland owed a duty despite the mat's condition | Cage contends mat presented a foreseeable dangerous condition and defendant created hazard | Sutherland argues mat wrinkles were open and obvious and store had no notice or duty to warn | Court held hazard was open and obvious; no duty to warn and summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Menifee v. Ohio Welding Prods., 15 Ohio St.3d 75 (1984) (elements of negligence: duty, breach, proximate causation)
- Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy, Inc., 18 Ohio St.3d 203 (1985) (landowner owes invitees ordinary care but not for dangers that are known or open and obvious)
- Sidle v. Humphrey, 13 Ohio St.2d 45 (1968) (open-and-obvious doctrine summarized)
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (2003) (open-and-obvious doctrine addresses the threshold duty issue)