Harper v. Chaney, 2013 Ohio 1160

Harper responded to a rental ad for a basement-access apartment owned by Chaney; she fell on an extraneous step at the bottom of the basement stairs, injuring her leg, ankle, and foot.
Chaney moved for summary judgment on negligence, arguing no duty to warn because the step was open and obvious.
The trial court granted summary judgment, concluding the hazard was open and obvious regardless of lighting; deeded to open-and-obvious doctrine.
Harper appealed, arguing issues of fact about lighting, visibility, and whether Chaney knew of the step or should have warned.
The appellate court reviewed de novo under Civ.R. 56, and held there remained genuine issues of material fact about whether the step was open and obvious under the lighting conditions.
The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings to resolve those factual questions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the step was an open and obvious danger as a matter of law given lighting conditions.	Harper contends genuine issues exist about visibility and whether she could have observed the step.	Chaney contends the hazard was open and obvious, warranting no duty to warn.	Issue of fact exists; summary judgment improper.

Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (burden-shifting summary judgment standard)
Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (1996) (summary-judgment burden on moving party; Dresher rule)
Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (1977) (summary judgment may be granted where no genuine issue of material fact exists)
Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (2003) (open-and-obvious doctrine; no duty for obvious hazards)
Simmers v. Bentley Constr. Co., 64 Ohio St.3d 642 (1992) (open-and-obvious analysis requires totality of circumstances)