Herbst v. Riverside Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 2013 Ohio 916

Herbsts sued Riverside for injuries from Mr. Herbst's fall on submerged pool steps at the Sheraton, owned by Riverside.
Mr. Herbst slipped on the pool steps while entering the pool using the rail and later fell again after his hand slipped.
Riverside moved for summary judgment arguing no duty to warn for open and obvious danger or lack of knowledge of a dangerous condition.
The trial court granted summary judgment, determining the danger was open and obvious or, alternatively, that Riverside had no actual or constructive knowledge.
Appellate court affirmed the summary judgment; the sole assignment of error was overruled.
Dissent argued factual issues existed on constructive knowledge and openness of the hazard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the pool-step hazard was open and obvious.	Herbsts contend it was not open and obvious.	Riverside argues water makes steps slippery and danger is open and obvious.	Open and obvious danger assumption not dispositive; court did not decide openness but held no knowledge shown.
Whether Riverside had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard.	Herbsts show knowledge could exist from prior slips and hotel maintenance acknowledgement.	Riverside had no evidence of prior incidents or maintenance issues; no notice.	No genuine issue of material fact; Riverside had no actual or constructive knowledge.

Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1996) (summary judgment standard; Civ.R.56 burden shifting)
Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (Ohio 1977) (summary judgment framework and de novo review)
Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (burden shifting on motion for summary judgment)
Simmers v. Bentley Constr. Co., 64 Ohio St.3d 642 (Ohio 1992) (open and obvious danger doctrine)
Worley v. Cleveland Pub. Power, 77 Ohio App.3d 51 (Ohio App.3d 1991) (constructive notice and duty concepts in premises liability)