Darah v. Coaching by Kurt, L.L.C.
2016 Ohio 7523
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Sherrie Darah tripped on a raised "ripple" in rubber flooring at Coaching by Kurt, LLC's gym on March 18, 2014 and suffered fractures requiring surgery. Her husband joined for loss of consortium.
- Flooring had been purchased and installed by the owner (Kato) on advice of trainer Yuschak; bubbles/ripples repeatedly appeared despite multiple attempts to fix them.
- Plaintiffs sued for negligence (failure to maintain/repair) and sought damages; defendant filed a third-party claim against trainer Yuschak (not part of this appeal).
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Coaching by Kurt, finding the hazard open and obvious; summary judgment for defendant was affirmed on accelerated appeal.
- Key factual record: the facility was well-lit, patrons (including plaintiff) knew ripples occurred and staff had warned patrons to "watch your step," but plaintiff testified she was looking at the trainer and did not look down before tripping.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the floor "ripple" was an open-and-obvious hazard barring duty | Ripple was not readily visible to Darah (she said she would not have seen it if she looked down); underlying installation defect was latent | Ripple was observable; everyone at facility knew ripples occurred and they were discoverable on ordinary inspection | Ripple was open and obvious; no duty owed; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether latent cause of ripple (improper installation) makes hazard non-obvious | Cause of hazard (installation hidden under mat) rendered condition latent and not discoverable | The operative hazard was the visible surface ripple, not its hidden cause | Court: cause immaterial; visible ripple controls; open-and-obvious rule applies |
| Whether attendant circumstances (mirrors, conversation) created a genuine issue of fact | Attendant circumstances distracted Darah and reduced visibility, so triable issue exists | No evidence of external distractions (facility well-lit, only two people present); distraction was within plaintiff's control | Appellate court: attendant circumstances not raised below and record lacks evidence; no triable issue |
| Whether plaintiff's subjective failure to look down defeats open-and-obvious characterization | Plaintiff’s testimony she didn’t look down shows she didn’t see the ripple | Open-and-obvious doctrine focuses on whether defect was observable, not whether plaintiff actually saw it | Court: actual perception by plaintiff not required; defect was observable; bar applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (Ohio 2003) (open-and-obvious hazards relieve owner of duty to warn)
- Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy, Inc., 18 Ohio St.3d 203 (Ohio 1985) (owner owes no duty for open-and-obvious dangers)
- Sidle v. Humphrey, 13 Ohio St.2d 45 (Ohio 1968) (establishes open-and-obvious rule in premises liability)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (summary judgment burdens and framing under Civ.R. 56)
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64 (Ohio 1978) (summary judgment standard)
- Gladon v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Auth., 75 Ohio St.3d 312 (Ohio 1996) (status of entrant defines duty owed)
- Cincinnati v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 95 Ohio St.3d 416 (Ohio 2002) (elements of negligence)