History
  • No items yet
midpage
Cuyahoga Falls v. Gaglione
2017 Ohio 6974
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017
Read the full case

Background

  • Plaintiff Justin Gaglione slipped and fell at the City of Cuyahoga Falls Natatorium on a puddle of water that had collected near the basketball court; he suffered a concussion and briefly lost consciousness.
  • Security footage showed three other people slipped in the same spot within minutes of Gaglione’s fall.
  • Natatorium staff knew of roof leaks and had been told about a leak in the gym shortly before the fall; the facility manager (Paige Asche) searched for a wet-floor sign/bucket, could not find one, returned to other duties, and did not post warnings or clean the area before the fall.
  • Gaglione sued the City for negligence; the City pleaded sovereign immunity and moved for summary judgment, arguing open-and-obvious danger, lack of breach, and applicability of the discretionary-function defense.
  • The trial court denied summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact on open-and-obvious, breach/prior knowledge, and that the leaky roof constituted a "physical defect" under R.C. 2744.02(B)(4); the City appealed.
  • The appellate court affirmed, holding factual disputes defeated summary judgment and that the discretionary-defense statute (R.C. 2744.03(A)(5)) did not apply to routine conduct-related decisions by staff.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether the physical-defect exception to political-subdivision immunity (R.C. 2744.02(B)(4)) applies Gaglione: leaky roof is a physical defect that caused water accumulation; employees had actual/constructive knowledge and failed to warn or remedy City: no physical defect caused his injury; puddle was off-court and not the City’s negligence; open-and-obvious Held: disputed facts exist whether a leaky roof (physical defect) caused the hazard and whether employees were negligent; summary judgment denied
Whether the puddle was an open-and-obvious danger (duty issue) Gaglione: puddle was clear on glazed floor and not observable; video of multiple falls supports non-obviousness City: puddle was observable and Gaglione should have seen it while chasing the ball Held: factual conflict on observability; open-and-obvious not resolved on summary judgment
Whether the City breached its duty (notice/response) Gaglione: manager had actual knowledge (leaks “usually occur” there), left without warning or cleanup; multiple slips show hazard persisted City: manager acted reasonably given short time between notice and fall and limited resources; remedial steps were being undertaken Held: genuine factual issues on prior knowledge, reasonableness of response, and whether breach occurred; summary judgment inappropriate
Whether the discretionary-function defense (R.C. 2744.03(A)(5)) immunizes the City Gaglione: staff actions were routine and not protected discretion; no showing of heightened policy judgment City: manager made resource-allocation judgments about signs/buckets and staffing, invoking discretionary immunity Held: defense construed narrowly; manager’s choices were routine (not heightened official discretion) so the defense did not apply on summary judgment

Key Cases Cited

  • Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (de novo appellate review of summary judgment)
  • Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (summary judgment standard under Civ.R. 56)
  • Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (moving party’s initial burden in summary judgment)
  • Cater v. Cleveland, 83 Ohio St.3d 24 (three-tier sovereign-immunity analysis under R.C. chapter 2744)
  • Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (open-and-obvious doctrine bars duty to warn)
  • Simmers v. Bentley Constr. Co., 64 Ohio St.3d 642 (rationale for open-and-obvious doctrine)
  • Johnson v. Wagner Provision Co., 141 Ohio St. 584 (standards for slip-and-fall proof: responsibility, notice, or sufficient duration)
  • Perkins v. Norwood City Schools, 85 Ohio St.3d 191 (distinction between routine and discretionary decisions for immunity)
  • M.H. v. Cuyahoga Falls, 134 Ohio St.3d 65 (maintenance/operation of Natatorium is a governmental function)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: Cuyahoga Falls v. Gaglione
Court Name: Ohio Court of Appeals
Date Published: Jul 26, 2017
Citation: 2017 Ohio 6974
Docket Number: 28513
Court Abbreviation: Ohio Ct. App.