Collier v. Libations Lounge, L.L.C.
2012 Ohio 2390
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Plaintiff Collier injured in unlit, unpaved parking lot when stepping into a hole amid darkness next to Libations Lounge
- Incident occurred April 2010; Collier was there for her daughter's birthday party and walked through parked cars
- Libations Lounge did not provide lighting; no attendant directing traffic alleged
- Collier sued in December 2010 for negligent maintenance and warning; City of Cleveland joined
- Summary judgment granted to appellees and City; Collier appealed on three assignments of error
- Court affirmed judgment, holding no duty owed due to open-and-obvious conditions and lack of negligence per se under Cleveland Codified Ordinances 457.09
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Open-and-obvious hazard applied | Collier: hazard not open and obvious due to attendant circumstances | Libations: hazard open and obvious; no duty to warn | Open-and-obvious doctrine governs; no duty; summary judgment affirmed |
| Darkness as an open-and-obvious hazard | Collier: darkness not inherently open/obvious; step-in-the-dark rule not applicable | Libations: darkness is an ordinary open-and-obvious risk; step-in-the-dark applies | Darkness deemed open and obvious; step-in-the-dark rule not creating duty; summary judgment affirmed |
| Negligence per se under C.C.O. 457.09 | Collier: violation of C.C.O. 457.09(c) supports negligence per se | Defendants: ordinance too general; not a specific conduct rule; not negligence per se | C.C.O. 457.09(c) is general; not negligence per se; third assignment overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Gates v. Speedway Superamerica, L.L.C., 2008-Ohio-5131 (8th Dist. No. 90563 (2008)) (open-and-obvious; parking lot duty not lit at night; attendant circumstances considerations)
- Abbuhl v. Orange Village, 2003-Ohio-4662 (8th Dist. No. 82203 (2003)) (illuminatÂion ordinance; absence of specific act; negligence per se failure)
- Lang v. Holly Marlene Motel, Inc., 2007-Ohio-3898 (4th Dist. No. 06CA18 (2007)) (attendant circumstances delineated; activities of plaintiff; open-and-obvious analysis)
- Zaslov v. May Dept. Stores Co., 1998 WL 686266 (8th Dist. No. 74030 (Oct. 1, 1998)) (negligence per se when statute prescribes specific conduct; distinguishable fact pattern)
- Zemcik v. LaPine Truck Sales & Equip. Co., None provided (8th Dist. 1998) (summary-judgment standard and Civ.R. 56 framework)