Honabarger v. Wayne Sav. Community Bank, 2013 Ohio 2793

On June 18, 2008, John Honabarger slipped on silt in a Wayne Savings Community Bank parking lot; his foot caught in a hole and he fell, sustaining injuries.
Honabarger sued tenant Wayne Savings Community Bank and property owner Chesterland Productions, PLL, alleging negligent maintenance and failure to repair the pavement; two John Doe corporations were named but not served.
Defendants moved for summary judgment, attaching copies of photographs and affidavits denying knowledge of a hazardous condition; the trial court granted summary judgment for defendants.
On appeal, Honabarger argued genuine issues of material fact existed as to (1) the existence and dangerousness of the silt-and-hole condition and (2) defendants’ actual or constructive knowledge of it.
The appellate court reviewed the summary-judgment record, found the photographs were not properly in evidence and defendants’ affidavits contained legal conclusions, and concluded disputed factual issues remained.
The Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the silt and hole an unreasonably dangerous condition?	The silt concealed a 6–10" by 4–5" hole ~1–2" deep; condition was hidden and dangerous.	The silt/hole were trivial outdoor pavement imperfections not unreasonably dangerous.	Reversed: genuine issue of material fact exists as to dangerousness; not trivial as a matter of law.
Did defendants have actual knowledge of the hazard?	Defendants (owner/tenant) would have better knowledge of lot conditions; plaintiff testified about likely causes (e.g., snowplow).	Affidavits deny knowledge of any hazardous condition.	Reversed: defendants’ affidavits insufficient; factual dispute remains on actual knowledge.
Did defendants have constructive notice (reasonable inspection duty)?	The hole’s size and concealment indicate it could have existed long enough to be discovered by reasonable inspections.	No evidence defendants failed inspections or that the hazard existed long enough.	Reversed: factual issue whether reasonable inspections would have revealed condition; summary judgment improper.
Were the photographs and affidavits sufficient to eliminate disputes on summary judgment?	N/A (plaintiff challenged admissibility/identification of photos).	Photographs and affidavits establish no dangerous condition.	Reversed: photos not properly in record or clearly identified; affidavits contained legal conclusions and did not meet movant’s Dresher burden.

Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (standard of review for summary judgment)
Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (summary judgment test)
Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (burden on movant to show absence of genuine issue)
Robinson v. Bates, 112 Ohio St.3d 17 (elements of negligence)
Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy, Inc., 18 Ohio St.3d 203 (shopkeeper duty to invitees)
Kimball v. City of Cincinnati, 160 Ohio St. 370 (minor pavement variation as slight defect)
Helms v. American Legion, Inc., 5 Ohio St.2d 60 (private-property application of Kimball)
Cash v. Cincinnati, 66 Ohio St.2d 319 (consider attendant circumstances before deeming defect insubstantial)
Light v. Ohio Univ., 28 Ohio St.3d 66 (definition of business invitee)