Carlo v. Kohl's Dept. Stores, Inc.
2017 Ohio 8173
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- On June 1, 2013, Mary Ann Carlo slipped on candy in the main aisle of a Kohl’s store and injured her knee; she, her husband and granddaughter were in the store as invitees.
- Witnesses observed brightly colored candy (like M&Ms) on the tile floor; they disagreed whether it was one piece or multiple pieces.
- Plaintiffs sued Kohl’s and KBS (store maintenance contractor) for negligence and loss of consortium.
- Kohl’s and KBS moved for summary judgment, arguing the condition was open and obvious and that they lacked actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; the court of appeals affirmed, holding plaintiffs could not show actual or constructive notice or other bases to infer a lack of ordinary care.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants had actual knowledge of the candy on the floor | Carlo argues an employee caused or knew about the hazard | Kohl’s/KBS deny any employee caused or knew of the candy | No evidence of actual knowledge; held for defendants |
| Whether defendants had constructive notice (sufficient time on floor) | Carlo contends the candy’s location in main aisle permits an inference it existed long enough | Defendants argue no evidence how long candy was present; mere location is speculative | Plaintiff conceded no knowledge of duration; no evidence of sufficient time; held for defendants |
| Whether the candy was an open and obvious hazard | Implicitly argues that even if open/obvious, defendants still liable via notice theories | Defendants assert open-and-obvious or no notice absolves duty to warn/remove | Court declined to decide open-and-obvious because lack of notice dispositive; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate | Carlo argues genuine issues of material fact remain | Defendants contend no genuine issue as to notice or causation | Court found no genuine issue of material fact and affirmed summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (de novo review of summary judgment)
- Horton v. Harwick Chem. Corp., 73 Ohio St.3d 679 (summary judgment standard)
- Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, 82 Ohio St.3d 367 (summary judgment standard)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (moving party’s burden in summary judgment)
- Texler v. D.O. Summers Cleaners & Shirt Laundry Co., 81 Ohio St.3d 677 (elements of negligence)
- Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy, Inc., 18 Ohio St.3d 203 (duty to invitees and latent vs. open dangers)
- Parsons v. Lawson Co., 57 Ohio App.3d 49 (hazard discoverable by ordinary inspection defeats liability)
- Combs v. First Natl. Supermarkets, Inc., 105 Ohio App.3d 27 (criteria for recovery from slip-and-fall: causation, actual notice, or constructive notice)
- Johnson v. Wagner Provision Co., 141 Ohio St. (historical authority for notice-based liability)