2016 Ohio 175
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Cash, a business invitee at Applebee’s in Niles, sues for injuries from a May 18, 2012 trip in the restaurant’s parking lot.
- She allegedly tripped over a concrete parking bumper that protruded from the front side of her vehicle.
- The incident occurred at night with limited lighting, and witnesses noted darkness and shadows around the bumper.
- Cash and witnesses described not seeing the bumper due to darkness, shadows, and nearby bushes; a manager responded to the scene.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Applebee’s, holding the bumper was an open and obvious hazard and there was no duty to warn.
- Cash appealed asserting errors in applying summary-judgment standard and in the open-and-obvious analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the parking bumper an open-and-obvious hazard as a matter of law? | Cash contends attendant circumstances create a genuine fact issue. | Applebee’s contends the bumper is open and obvious; no duty arises. | Yes; bumper is open and obvious; no duty for premises owner. |
| Do attendant circumstances defeat open-and-obvious analysis? | Darkness, distance, and lighting conditions negate open-and-obvious status. | Attendant circumstances do not significantly alter the open-and-obvious nature. | No attendant circumstances created a material fact issue; open-and-obvious applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sidle v. Humphrey, 313 Ohio St. 45 (1968) (open-and-obvious doctrine; no duty for known dangers)
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (2003) (no duty where danger is open and obvious)
- Jeswald v. Hutt, 170 Ohio St. 239 (1968) (darkness as warning; no lighting obligation for owners)
- Swonger v. Middlefield Village Apts., 2005-Ohio-941 (11th Dist. Geauga) (lighting not required; attendant circumstances not controlling)
- Shipman v. Papa John’s, 2014-Ohio-5092 (3rd Dist. Shelby) (no bright-line lighting duty; open-and-obvious analysis preserved)
- Scheetz v. Kentwood, Inc., 2003-Ohio-1209 (11th Dist.) (parking-lot lighting not required; duty absent for open-and-obvious hazards)
- Gamby v. Fallen Timbers Ents., 2003-Ohio-5184 (6th Dist. Lucas) (attendant circumstances limited to exceptional situations)
- Lang v. Holly Hill Motel, Inc., 122 Ohio St.3d 120 (2009-Ohio-2495) (duty depends on relationship; business invitee standard)