Harris-Coker v. Abraham
2012 Ohio 4135
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Appellant Harris-Coker sued Appellees Abraham for injuries from a fall on concrete steps on premises rented from the Abrahams.
- Plaintiff alleged negligence and negligence per se under landlord duties.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Abrahams.
- On appeal, the court reverses in part to address negligence per se claims.
- Appellate court sustains the negligence-per-se issue and remands; moot regarding other issues; costs split.
- Opinion notes a partial reversal and remand consistent with addressing statutory claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper without addressing negligence per se claims | Harris-Coker argues the trial court failed to consider negligence per se under R.C. 5321.04(A)(2)-(3) | Abrahams contends summary judgment was proper | Reversed and remanded to consider negligence per se |
| Whether genuine issues exist on common-law negligence thus supporting summary judgment | Arguments on duty, breach, and open-and-obvious hazards were not adequately resolved | Trial court properly granted summary judgment on common-law negligence | Moot; appellate court declines to address further issues after resolving negligence per se issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Menifee v. Ohio Welding Prod., Inc., 15 Ohio St.3d 75 (Ohio 1984) (duty and breach elements of negligence; standard of care)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1996) (summary judgment standard; de novo review)
- Viock v. Stowe-Woodward Co., 13 Ohio App.3d 7 (6th Dist.1983) (reviewing court favors non-moving party in初i)