2018 Ohio 4400
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Mary Duell slipped on slush on an exterior staircase after exiting the Duke Energy Convention Center and sued multiple defendants (owners/operators of the center and adjacent garage) for negligent maintenance.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment after discovery; the trial court granted the motion and Duell appealed, arguing genuine issues of material fact remained.
- Duell’s theory: a lease among the property owners required maintenance of the staircase and compliance with Cincinnati municipal snow-and-ice ordinances, thereby imposing a tort duty to her beyond the common-law no-duty winter rule.
- Defendants argued the lease merely allocated maintenance among owners and did not create a greater duty to the public or to Duell as an invitee; they sought summary judgment on that basis.
- The court treated the issue under premises-liability law (Duell was a business invitee) and evaluated whether the contract/ordinance compliance created an actionable tort duty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the lease/municipal-ordinance clause created a tort duty to Duell beyond common-law duties | Lease obligates defendants to maintain steps and follow municipal code; that creates a contractual duty that gives rise to tort liability | Lease only allocates maintenance among owners and does not impose a duty to the public or create greater tort obligations | No; the lease/ordinance clause did not create a tort duty to Duell greater than common-law duties, so summary judgment was proper |
| Applicability of Ohio’s no-duty winter rule | Ordinance/lease compliance converts what would be natural accumulation into an enforceable duty | Natural accumulation of snow/slush remains nonactionable absent creation of an unnatural condition or actual/constructive notice | No-duty winter rule applies; municipal-code obligations don’t impose tort liability on invitees absent other grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Lang v. Holly Hill Motel, Inc., 122 Ohio St.3d 120 (Ohio 2009) (elements of negligence)
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (Ohio 2003) (duty owed to business invitees)
- Lopatkovich v. City of Tiffin, 28 Ohio St.3d 204 (Ohio 1986) (municipal snow-and-ice statutes do not create a duty to the public at large)
- Brinkman v. Ross, 68 Ohio St.3d 82 (Ohio 1994) (no-duty winter rule and limits on municipal-ordinance-based liability)
- Sidle v. Humphrey, 13 Ohio St.2d 45 (Ohio 1968) (obviousness/knowledge limits on premises-owner duty)