2014 Ohio 5061
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Sanchez rented a two-story townhome from Cincinnati-Hamilton County Community Action Agency (CAA); she requested repair for moisture damage behind an upstairs toilet.
- CAA maintenance employee Josh Hill arrived with a mudding knife; Sanchez’s boyfriend Ruben (experienced drywall worker) directed the repair and provided his boxcutter to cut out the damaged drywall.
- Ruben observed and instructed Hill during the repair, helped apply mud, and then went downstairs before finishing cleanup; Hill left shortly after.
- While parents were downstairs, Ruben’s and Sanchez’s children went upstairs; four-year-old V.R. attempted to take the boxcutter from her two-year-old brother and cut her finger, requiring multiple surgeries.
- Plaintiffs sued CAA for negligence per se (R.C. 5321.04 landlord duty to repair) and common-law negligence (failing to remove a hazardous instrumentality). CAA moved for summary judgment, arguing no statutory violation and no duty regarding the known, open-and-obvious risk.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for CAA; appellants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CAA breached R.C. 5321.04 by failing to keep premises fit/habitable (negligence per se) | Sanchez contends CAA failed to properly repair moisture-damaged wall, violating landlord repair duty | CAA argues plaintiffs point to no evidence that premises were unfit/uninhabitable or that any statutory provision was violated | Court held plaintiffs failed to show premises were unfit or constructive eviction; no statutory breach, so negligence-per-se fails |
| Whether CAA owed a common-law duty concerning the boxcutter left after repair | Plaintiffs argue CAA (through its employee) allowed a hazardous instrumentality to remain accessible to children | CAA argues the boxcutter was loaned/used and left by Ruben and Hill; risk was known/open-and-obvious and thus no landlord duty | Court held open-and-obvious doctrine bars claim because Ruben knew of and failed to secure the boxcutter; CAA owed no duty |
| Whether affidavit contradicted deposition to create a material factual dispute | Ruben’s affidavit claimed Hill left without notice, suggesting CAA’s abandonment | CAA relied on Ruben’s deposition that Hill finished and left and Ruben knew Hill was done; inconsistent affidavit cannot create genuine issue | Court applied Byrd and found affidavit insufficient to overcome deposition; no genuine dispute |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate overall | Plaintiffs argued triable issues of duty and statutory breach precluded summary judgment | CAA argued absence of duty/statutory violation entitles it to judgment as a matter of law | Court affirmed summary judgment for CAA because plaintiffs did not establish duty or statutory breach |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (summary judgment standard)
- Jorg v. Cincinnati Black United Front, 153 Ohio App.3d 258 (de novo review of summary judgment)
- Lang v. Holly Hill Motel, Inc., 122 Ohio St.3d 120 (elements of negligence)
- Chambers v. St. Mary’s School, 82 Ohio St.3d 563 (duty may arise from statute or facts)
- Robinson v. Bates, 112 Ohio St.3d 17 (open-and-obvious doctrine bars common-law duty)
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (rationale for open-and-obvious rule)
- Byrd v. Smith, 110 Ohio St.3d 24 (affidavit cannot contradict deposition to defeat summary judgment)