Davis v. Snack Shak
2019 Ohio 1887
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Plaintiff Jochelle Davis sued Snack Shack (Garfield Corner Market, Inc.) after slipping on a clear liquid on the store floor on Sept. 7, 2016, claiming negligence and seeking $100,000.
- In deposition Davis testified she did not see how the liquid got on the floor, did not see anyone spill it, did not see employees in the area before she fell, and did not know what the liquid was.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment arguing Davis produced no evidence that the store created the hazard or had actual/constructive notice of it.
- Davis opposed with unauthenticated medical records and, late and without leave, an affidavit asserting an employee told her the cooler was leaking and had been doing so for some time.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for defendant, finding Davis presented no direct or corroborated evidence that the store created or had notice of the hazard; Davis appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether genuine issue exists that defendant created or knew of the hazard | Davis: an employee told her management knew the floor was wet from the cooler, creating a dispute for jury | Defendant: Davis has no direct evidence; deposition shows no knowledge of source or duration of liquid | No genuine issue; summary judgment for defendant affirmed |
| Whether plaintiff’s evidence (medical records) creates issue of notice/negligence | Davis: medical records and affidavit support injuries and employee statement about cooler leak | Defendant: medical records irrelevant to notice and unauthenticated; affidavit is self-serving and contradicts deposition | Medical records irrelevant and insufficient; do not create genuine issue |
| Whether late affidavit can defeat summary judgment when it contradicts deposition | Davis: affidavit explains store knowledge and duration | Defendant: affidavit contradicts earlier testimony and lacks corroboration | Affidavit contradicted deposition without adequate explanation; cannot create genuine issue |
| Whether constructive notice can be inferred from accident alone | Davis: presence of clear liquid and alleged employee statement support inference of prior existence | Defendant: accident alone insufficient; no evidence of duration or employee knowledge | Court: accident alone insufficient; plaintiff must produce direct or corroborating evidence of notice or duration |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Wagner Provision Co., 141 Ohio St. 584, 49 N.E.2d 925 (recognizes standards for premises liability and notice)
- Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy, Inc., 18 Ohio St.3d 203, 480 N.E.2d 474 (business invitee duty of ordinary care)
- Parras v. Std. Oil Co., 160 Ohio St. 315, 116 N.E.2d 300 (mere happening of accident does not create presumption of negligence)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 671 N.E.2d 241 (de novo appellate review of summary judgment)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 662 N.E.2d 264 (movant burden and reciprocal burden under Civ.R. 56)
- Texler v. D.O. Summers Cleaners & Shirt Laundry Co., 81 Ohio St.3d 677, 693 N.E.2d 271 (elements required to defeat summary judgment on negligence claim)
- Byrd v. Smith, 110 Ohio St.3d 24, 850 N.E.2d 47 (party affidavit that contradicts deposition cannot defeat summary judgment without explanation)
- Parsons v. Lawson Co., 57 Ohio App.3d 49, 566 N.E.2d 698 (hazard discoverable by ordinary inspection may support summary judgment)