Hutchison v. LF, LLC, 3:19-cv-00355

Background:

On October 8, 2018, plaintiff John Hutchison was injured at a Lowe’s in Centerville, Ohio when several vertically displayed shelving boards fell on him, causing head injuries and recurring headaches.
The boards were 8-foot, 1/4-inch thick, 12-inch wide pieces stacked vertically in columns and secured by a steel retention chain that sat lower than chains seen in other Lowe’s displays.
Plaintiff reached for and pulled the bottom board beneath the chain; as he turned to put it in his cart, multiple boards fell and struck him. His wife was the only other person present.
Plaintiff sued for negligence; Lowe’s moved for summary judgment, arguing (1) the hazard was open and obvious and (2) Lowe’s lacked actual or constructive notice of any dangerous condition.
The record contained no evidence (video, employee testimony, or other documentary proof) that Lowe’s employees created, knew of, or had notice of an unstable display.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the danger was open and obvious	The boards themselves were visible but the danger of removing one causing collapse was not necessarily obvious	The upright, observable boards secured by a chain made the condition an open and obvious hazard	Court: Not decided as a matter of law; genuine dispute exists whether the risk of falling was open and obvious
Whether Lowe’s had notice of the hazardous condition (actual or constructive)	Plaintiff contends Lowe’s should not be required to "prove a negative" and that display placement implies negligence	Lowe’s argues plaintiff produced no evidence that employees placed or knew of an unstable display or that the condition existed long enough for constructive notice	Court: No evidentiary basis for actual or constructive notice; plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue
Whether summary judgment was appropriate	Plaintiff urged that a jury could infer risk from the display and the differing chain height	Lowe’s maintained plaintiff offered only speculation, not specific facts required to survive summary judgment	Court: Granted summary judgment for Lowe’s because no genuine issue as to Lowe’s notice; case terminated

Key Cases Cited

Keweenaw Bay Indian Cmty. v. Rising, 477 F.3d 881 (6th Cir. 2007) (summary judgment standard)
Alexander v. CareSource, 576 F.3d 551 (6th Cir. 2009) (nonmovant must present specific evidence to avoid summary judgment)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986) (requirement that opposing party show more than metaphysical doubt)
Hernandez-Butler v. Ikea U.S. East, LLC, 435 F. Supp. 3d 816 (S.D. Ohio 2020) (stacked merchandise cases may present factual question whether hazard is open and obvious)
Lang v. Holly Hill Motel, Inc., 909 N.E.2d 120 (Ohio 2009) (elements of negligence)
Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharm., 480 N.E.2d 474 (Ohio 1985) (shopkeeper duty to invitees)
Sidle v. Humphrey, 233 N.E.2d 589 (Ohio 1968) (open and obvious doctrine limits shopkeeper duty)
Combs v. First Nat’l Supermarkets, Inc., 663 N.E.2d 669 (Ohio 1996) (proof of duration required for constructive notice)
Dowling v. Cleveland Clinic Found., 593 F.3d 472 (6th Cir. 2010) (shopkeeper liability and notice principles)
Ray v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 993 N.E.2d 808 (Ohio Ct. App.) (requiring actual or constructive notice for recovery)
Hochstetler v. Menards, 688 F. App’x 381 (6th Cir. 2017) (affirming summary judgment where plaintiff presented no evidence employees created or knew of hazardous display)
Armstrong v. Lakes Golf & Country Club, Inc., 98 N.E.3d 328 (Ohio Ct. App.) (open-and-obvious test is objective)
Kemper v. Builder’s Square, Inc., 671 N.E.2d 1104 (Ohio Ct. App.) (triable issue where store arranged vertical boards without restraint)