Carnes v. Siferd
2011 Ohio 4467
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Bethel Carnes sues Larry and Laura Siferd for injuries from a trip-and-fall on the Siferds’ sidewalk in Allen County, Ohio.
- Bethel alleges the sidewalk had a raised section two inches above an adjoining segment after the city notified the owners of the defect.
- Siferds answer contends the defect was open and obvious.
- Bethel testified the fall occurred on June 5, 2009 while at a garage sale; she was focused on the sale and did not see the ledge.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to the Siferds finding the ledge was open and obvious and that attendant circumstances failed to rebut the two-inch rule; Bethel appeals.
- The appellate court affirms, holding the ledge was open and obvious and attendant circumstances did not create a genuine issue of material fact about rebutting the open-and-obvious nature.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ledge was open and obvious as a matter of law | Carnes argues attendant circumstances rebut open-and-obvious | Siferds argue open-and-obvious; no attendant circumstances rebut the rule | Ledg e open and obvious; no attendant circumstances create triable issue |
| Whether attendant circumstances rebut the two-inch rule’s presumption | Bethel claims visible factors distracted her and reduced normal care | Siferds contend attendant circumstances do not exist or negate open-and-obvious hazard | Attendant circumstances present no genuine issue; two-inch rule moot because open-and-obvious holding stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (Ohio 2003) (open-and-obvious doctrine; duty to warn not owed for obvious hazards)
- Lang v. Holly Hill Motel, 2007-Ohio-3898 (Ohio 4th Dist.) (open-and-obvious threshold; attendant circumstances may create issues)
- Ray v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2009-Ohio-4542 (Ohio 4th Dist.) (objective standard for open-and-obvious; considers hazard itself)
- Backus v. Giant Eagle, Inc., 1996 (Ohio App.) (duty to look; unidentified attendant circumstances insufficient)
- Lydic v. Lowe’s Cos., Inc., 2002-Ohio-5001 (Ohio App.) (unfamiliarity with sidewalk does not alone create attendant circumstance)
- Dobranchin v. City of Canfield, 2008-Ohio-4968 (Ohio App.) (valve on sidewalk; open-and-obvious analysis supports dismissal)
- Heckman v. Mayfield Country Club, 2007-Ohio-5330 (Ohio App.) (distinguishable facts; not controlling)
- Williams v. Lowe’s of Bellefontaine, 2007-Ohio-2045 (Ohio App.) (attendant circumstances analysis in open-and-obvious context)
- Sack v. Skyline Chili, Inc., 2003-Ohio-2226 (Ohio App.) (attendant-circumstance analysis cited in open-and-obvious context)