2021 Ohio 4460
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- On July 2, 2016, Paula Canfield cut her left big toe while deplaning at John Glenn Columbus International Airport after contacting the metal edge of a mobile bridge adaptor (MBA/adapter) while wearing open-toe sandals. She photographed the adapter after the injury.
- The Canfields sued United Airlines (and others later voluntarily dismissed), alleging United failed to inspect/maintain the MBA and to warn of a latent, razor-sharp edge.
- United moved for summary judgment supported by discovery showing ATS (Airport Terminal Services, Inc.) owned/handled the MBA and that United could not identify the specific MBA involved.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for United; the Canfields appealed on four assignments (summary judgment standard, notice/inspection duty, derivative loss-of-consortium, and spoliation/presumption).
- The Tenth District affirmed: it rejected spoliation/presumption (no gross negligence in preservation), held the plaintiff failed to show an unreasonably dangerous latent condition or notice, and therefore found United entitled to summary judgment; loss-of-consortium claim dismissed as derivative.
- Judge Dorrian dissented, arguing genuine factual disputes existed about control/notice and that United had not met its initial summary-judgment burden.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spoliation / adverse inference for nonproduction of MBA | United (or ATS as its agent) failed to preserve/produce the MBA; police report put United on notice; nonproduction warrants inference against United | No evidence of intentional/grossly negligent destruction by United; ATS owned MBA; plaintiff photographed device and made no preservation request | Denied: no strong showing of malfeasance or gross neglect; no entitlement to negative inference |
| Negligence / premises liability (latent dangerous condition & notice) | MBA had a latent "razor-sharp" metal edge that cut Canfield; United breached duty to inspect/maintain and warn invitees | Plaintiff’s testimony only equated the edge as "sharp" because it cut her; no observable latent defect shown; ATS handled MBA; no evidence United knew or had constructive notice | Granted for United: plaintiff failed to present evidence of an unreasonably dangerous latent condition or notice; injury alone insufficient to infer negligence |
| Loss of consortium (derivative claim) | Derivative claim based on spouse’s injury | If negligence claim fails, derivative claim fails | Granted for United: derivative claim fails because primary negligence claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Grady v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 78 Ohio St.3d 181 (clarifies summary-judgment standard under Civ.R. 56)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (movant’s initial burden in summary-judgment practice)
- Vahila v. Hall, 77 Ohio St.3d 421 (1997) (nonmovant’s reciprocal burden once movant meets initial showing)
- Toney v. Berkemer, 6 Ohio St.3d 455 (1983) (trial court discretion to sanction for discovery violations)
- Boles v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 153 Ohio St. 381 (1948) (accident alone does not establish negligence; plaintiff must show how and why injury occurred)
- Bowen v. Kil-Kare, Inc., 63 Ohio St.3d 84 (1992) (loss-of-consortium claim is derivative)
- Murphy v. Reynoldsburg, 65 Ohio St.3d 356 (1992) (summary judgment must be granted cautiously; inferences drawn for nonmovant)
- Hannah v. Dayton Power & Light Co., 82 Ohio St.3d 482 (1998) (inferences from evidentiary materials must be construed in favor of the nonmoving party)
- Brokamp v. Mercy Hosp. Anderson, 132 Ohio App.3d 850 (1st Dist. 1999) (negative evidentiary inference for spoliation requires strong showing of malfeasance or gross neglect)