Howard v. Meat City, Inc.
2016 Ohio 7989
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Willa Howard tripped in a hole in Meat City’s parking lot, fell, and sued Meat City, the property owner Trust, and contractor Fritchie for negligence and loss of consortium.
- Willa frequented the store, had noticed potholes in the lot before, and testified she could have seen the hole if she had been looking; weather was clear on the day of the fall.
- Meat City contracted with Fritchie to repair parking-lot potholes (work that day focused on the west lot); there was no written contract and no evidence Fritchie was hired to repair the specific area where Willa fell.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding the hole was open and obvious and there were no attendant circumstances; Howards appealed.
- On appeal, the Third District affirmed: the open-and-obvious doctrine barred liability, no attendant circumstance excused it, and Fritchie owed no actionable duty (and did not create the hazard).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the parking-lot hole an open-and-obvious danger? | Howard: the hole was not observable due to being partially under her car and she didn’t see it. | Defendants: the hole was observable; Howard admitted she could have seen it and had noticed other potholes previously. | Court: open-and-obvious — no genuine issue of material fact; doctrine bars duty to warn. |
| Did an attendant circumstance (car door/vehicle) negate open-and-obvious rule? | Howard: her vehicle blocked view, an attendant circumstance beyond her control created an exception. | Defendants: the vehicle was under plaintiff’s control and vehicles parking are ordinary, not an unusual owner-created circumstance. | Court: no — vehicle was created/controlled by plaintiff and not an unusual owner-made circumstance; attendant-circumstance exception inapplicable. |
| Did Fritchie (contractor) owe a duty to Howard via contract or by creating the hazard? | Howard: Fritchie assumed a duty to maintain/repair the lot and failed to do so, creating the dangerous condition. | Defendants/Fritchie: no evidence Fritchie was contracted to repair that area or that Fritchie created the hole; thus no foreseeable duty to Howard. | Court: no duty — no evidence Fritchie should have foreseen injury or created the hazard; even if a duty existed, open-and-obvious rule could apply. |
| Was summary judgment appropriate on derivative loss-of-consortium claim? | Howard: N/A (derivative of negligence). | Defendants: derivative claim fails if negligence claim fails. | Court: yes — loss-of-consortium dismissed because negligence claim fails. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Shaffer, 90 Ohio St.3d 388 (de novo review of summary judgment) (standard of review)
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (open-and-obvious doctrine obviates duty to warn)
- Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy, Inc., 18 Ohio St.3d 203 (shopkeeper duty to warn of latent dangers)
- Jackson v. Kings Island, 58 Ohio St.2d 357 (premises liability duties to invitees)
- Simmers v. Bentley Constr. Co., 64 Ohio St.3d 642 (independent contractors and open-and-obvious rule)
- Lang v. Holly Hill Motel, Inc., 122 Ohio St.3d 120 (open-and-obvious hazards often question of law)
- Huston v. Konieczny, 52 Ohio St.3d 214 (duty depends on relationship and foreseeability)
- McGuire v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 118 Ohio App.3d 494 (attendant circumstances concept explained)