Hill v. Mullins
2017 Ohio 1302
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Anne Hill (tile worker) fell into an unguarded 45" x 34" opening/stairwell in the Mullinses' renovated house during a first-time visit to provide an estimate, suffering serious injuries.
- The Mullinses had removed walls during renovation and left the stair opening without a railing, barrier, or tape; Hill entered the house with Patricia Mullins and fell shortly after stepping "around the corner."
- Hill claimed her view of the opening was obscured by a wall/post and by Mullins walking and talking in front of her; Mullins provided a different version of events.
- Mullinses moved for summary judgment arguing the hazard was "open and obvious"; Hill opposed with her affidavit, deposition testimony, and a forensic report by Dehus describing the opening's position adjacent to a wall.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding the hole observable and no attendant circumstances; the appellate court reversed and remanded, concluding genuine issues of material fact existed about whether the opening was open and obvious from Hill's vantage point.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of open-and-obvious doctrine to the stairwell opening | Hill: approach path, adjacent wall/post, and Mullins' presence obscured view — attendant circumstances preclude application | Mullins: large, prominent, uncovered hole was observable and therefore open-and-obvious; Hill simply failed to look down | Reversed trial court — genuine factual dispute whether opening was open-and-obvious from Hill's vantage point, so summary judgment inappropriate |
| Existence of attendant circumstances that negate open-and-obvious rule | Hill: distraction (talking/gesturing), wall placement adjacent to opening, and position of Mullins created a substantial, unusual risk | Mullins: ordinary facts (walking/talking) are not unusual attendant circumstances; hazard still observable | Court: attendant-circumstance issue unresolved — some circumstances (walking/talking) are ordinary, but wall adjacency and positioning create a fact question requiring trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, 82 Ohio St.3d 367 (standards for summary judgment)
- Mitseff v. Wheeler, 38 Ohio St.3d 112 (moving party initial summary-judgment burden)
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (open-and-obvious doctrine bars duty)
- LaCourse v. Fleitz, 28 Ohio St.3d 209 (invitee and owner’s superior knowledge principle)
- Stockhauser v. Archdiocese of Cincinnati, 97 Ohio App.3d 29 (attendant circumstances and totality-of-circumstances approach)