2016 Ohio 1432
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Plaintiff (Estate of Jennifer Merrill) slipped and fell in a Meijer store early morning, sustaining fractures and substantial medical expenses. She alleged she slipped on a clear, watery liquid that she observed coming from beneath a pallet stacked with cases of bottled water at an endcap.
- Meijer employees stored cases of bottled water on wooden pallets placed atop plastic pallets; testimony indicated pallets and bottles were sometimes damaged and could leak when moved by forklifts.
- A former Meijer employee testified that leaking bottles were an "ongoing issue" and that store practice was to remove visibly leaking bottles before pallets were moved into sales areas, but there was no written policy or routine inspection to prevent leaks after placement on the sales floor.
- Two Meijer employees walked past Merrill after her fall while texting and did not assist; other employees had responsibility to scan aisles, but the record did not show that a scan occurred before the fall.
- At summary judgment the trial court granted Meijer judgment, finding Merrill s theory speculative; the appellate court reversed, finding genuine issues of material fact as to whether the liquid originated from the water pallet and whether Meijer had constructive notice or failed to take reasonable precautions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Meijer breached duty to keep premises reasonably safe | Meijer caused or should have prevented leakage from water pallets; knew leaks were an ongoing problem and failed to prevent or warn | Meijer argued no proof the liquid came from its pallet; plaintiff s theory is speculative | Genuine issue of material fact exists whether Meijer breached by placing/maintaining leaking pallets without adequate precautions |
| Actual or constructive notice of the hazard | Ongoing leaking problem and lack of post-placement inspection gave Meijer constructive notice; employees were tasked with scanning aisles but did not do so | Meijer contended there was no evidence it knew of this specific puddle or had sufficient time to discover and remedy it | Court found sufficient evidence of ongoing leaks and incomplete preventative practice to raise triable issue of constructive notice |
| Open-and-obvious doctrine (duty to warn) | Plaintiff contends water puddle was not discoverable by ordinary inspection before she turned the aisle corner | Meijer argued any hazard was open and obvious, negating duty to warn | Court held open-and-obvious issue is disputed; material facts remain for trial |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment | Merrill argued testimony and employee admissions create factual disputes requiring trial | Meijer argued mere inference/speculation cannot defeat summary judgment | Court reversed summary judgment, applying de novo review and construing evidence for nonmoving party |
Key Cases Cited
- Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy, Inc., 18 Ohio St.3d 203 (1985) (shopkeeper owes invitees duty to maintain premises in reasonably safe condition)
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (2003) (no duty to warn of open-and-obvious dangers)
- Mootispaw v. Eckstein, 76 Ohio St.3d 383 (1996) (nonmoving party must present specific facts showing triable issue under Civ.R. 56)
- Anaple v. Standard Oil Co., 162 Ohio St. 537 (1955) (constructive notice exists when hazard existed long enough that defendant, in exercise of ordinary care, should have discovered it)
- Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co., 248 N.Y. 339 (1928) (risk reasonably perceived defines duty to be obeyed)