2016 Ohio 8149
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Jeffrey Humble fell descending from an elevated party room at Boneyard Westlake during halftime of a Browns game and suffered leg fractures. He had earlier entered the room without incident.
- The party room is elevated by two steps (one riser) from the main dining area; the restroom was in the main dining area. Humble says a “wall” of people blocked his view of the steps when he exited.
- Humble sued for negligence and negligence per se, alleging overcrowding (exceeding occupancy) and a building-code violation re: handrails. Boneyard moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Boneyard, holding the stairs were an open-and-obvious danger. Humble appealed the negligence ruling.
- The appellate court reviewed de novo and affirmed, finding the crowd did not constitute attendant circumstances and the open-and-obvious doctrine barred recovery; the code violation did not establish negligence per se.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a crowd in the party room constituted "attendant circumstances" that defeat the open-and-obvious rule | Humble: overcrowding blocked his view of the steps and distracted him, preventing recognition of the hazard | Boneyard: crowd alone does not create attendant circumstances; Humble had previously traversed the same steps and should have exercised care | Held: No genuine issue of material fact — crowd was not an attendant circumstance; steps were open and obvious as a matter of law |
| Whether violation of Ohio Adm. Code 4101:1-10-01 (handrail requirement) establishes negligence per se | Humble: alleged code violation shows negligence and should preclude summary judgment | Boneyard: code violation (if any) is evidentiary, not negligence per se; open-and-obvious defense still applies | Held: Violation of the code does not establish negligence per se; open-and-obvious doctrine can defeat claims based on code violations |
Key Cases Cited
- Mussivand v. David, 45 Ohio St.3d 314 (establishes duty/breach/injury elements for negligence)
- Simmers v. Bentley Constr. Co., 64 Ohio St.3d 642 (explains rationale for open-and-obvious doctrine)
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (articulates that landowner owes no duty for open-and-obvious dangers)
- Chambers v. St. Mary’s School, 82 Ohio St.3d 563 (violation of administrative rule is evidence of negligence, not negligence per se)
- Lang v. Holly Hill Motel, Inc., 122 Ohio St.3d 120 (open-and-obvious defense applies to claims based on building code violations)