Colville v. Meijer Stores Ltd.
2012 Ohio 2413
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Plaintiff Sharon Colville sued Meijer Stores Limited Partnership and Home City Ice Company for injuries from a slip and fall in a Meijer store.”
- The puddle of water was located beside an ice machine in front of the ice-box area; the spill’s source was unclear.
- Colville testified she did not see water as she approached the ice machine and fell when she slipped on the puddle.
- Depositions showed an ice-delivery employee (Unger) and a service-leader (Bates) with limited direct evidence linking the puddle to either defendant.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to both defendants based on open-and-obvious doctrine and lack of proof of creation/knowledge; Colville appealed.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, applying the open-and-obvious framework and rejecting attendant-circumstances arguments and speculative inferences about liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the puddle was an open-and-obvious hazard as a matter of law | Colville argues attendant circumstances create a fact issue. | Meijer/Home City Ice contend puddle was open and obvious. | Open-and-obvious doctrine affirmed; no genuine issue. |
| Whether attendant circumstances negate open-and-obvious | Colville asserts distraction while pushing a cart. | Defendants argue no distraction present. | No attendant circumstances; doctrine still applies. |
| Whether Home City Ice created or knew of the puddle | Evidence supports possible creation/notice. | No admissible evidence of creation or notice. | Summary judgment proper for lack of evidence. |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate given insufficient proof of causation | Colville’s testimony could support inference of liability. | No direct link establishing breach. | Court affirms judgment; no genuine dispute on causation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sidle v. Humphrey, 13 Ohio St.2d 45 (Ohio 1968) (premises-liability doctrine for obvious hazards; duty absent for obvious dangers)
- Debie v. Cochran Pharmacy-Berwick, Inc., 11 Ohio St.2d 38 (Ohio 1967) (natural ice/snow hazards are generally obvious; no duty to remove)
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (Ohio 2003) (open-and-obvious doctrine focuses on duty and condition's obviousness, not plaintiff conduct)
- Brant v. Meijer, Inc., 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 21369, 2006-Ohio-6300 (Ohio 2006) (open-and-obvious analysis in store setting; open questions about notice and condition)
- Middleton v. Meijer, Inc., 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 23789, 2010-Ohio-3244 (Ohio 2010) (mixed outcomes on open-and-obvious with notice and deterrence considerations)