2018 Ohio 1659
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- On Sept. 20, 2015, Cindy Caruso tripped on a railroad tie and fractured her ankle while playing putt‑putt at Island Adventures, owned/operated by Erie Shoreline Properties, LLC and Moore Lakeshore Investments, LLC.
- Carusos sued Erie and Moore for negligence and negligent per se (alleging violation of Ohio Basic Building Code §1013.1 and failure to install required guards).
- Defendants moved for summary judgment; trial court granted judgment for defendants on Dec. 11, 2017.
- Mrs. Caruso conceded in deposition she would have seen the railroad tie if she had looked; she was walking backward watching another player when she fell and had played the course previously.
- Trial court applied the open‑and‑obvious doctrine and rejected attendant‑circumstances and building‑code arguments; Sixth District affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the hazard (railroad tie/dropoff) was open and obvious | Caruso: hazard not effectively open and obvious under circumstances | Defs: hazard was objectively open and obvious; invitee should have discovered it | Hazard was open and obvious; summary judgment proper |
| Whether attendant circumstances excuse failure to observe the hazard | Caruso: walking backward and watching another player distracted her; creates fact issue | Defs: plaintiff’s distraction was ordinary, within her control, not an unusual owner‑created circumstance | Attendant circumstances doctrine not applicable; no genuine issue of material fact |
| Whether a building‑code violation (lack of guardrail) creates liability despite open‑and‑obvious hazard | Caruso: code violation (guard required) would have prevented the fall; negligence per se/evidence of negligence | Defs: open‑and‑obvious defense still bars recovery even if code breached | Open‑and‑obvious doctrine can defeat a claim based on building‑code violation; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate overall | Caruso: factual disputes remain on visibility, distraction, and code issues | Defs: undisputed facts establish duty/breach questions resolved by law in their favor | Summary judgment affirmed: no genuine issue of material fact, defendants entitled to judgment as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Comer v. Risko, 106 Ohio St.3d 185 (2005) (standard of review for summary judgment — de novo under Civ.R. 56)
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (2003) (open‑and‑obvious doctrine evaluates the dangerous condition objectively)
- Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy, Inc., 18 Ohio St.3d 203 (1985) (landowner owes no duty to warn of open and obvious dangers to invitees)
- Lang v. Holly Hill Motel, Inc., 122 Ohio St.3d 120 (2009) (open‑and‑obvious doctrine can be asserted against claims arising from building code violations)
- Sidle v. Humphrey, 13 Ohio St.2d 45 (1968) (foundational premises‑liability principles regarding open and obvious dangers)