Jackson v. Akron Summit Cnty. Library
102 N.E.3d 1180
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Betty Jackson tripped and fell on concrete outside the Highland Square Branch of the Akron Summit County Public Library and sued for compensatory damages.
- Concrete slabs near the fall had heaved, creating about a one-inch ridge between slabs; a work order pre-dating the fall noted the potential tripping hazard.
- An orange cone had been placed outside the library entrance before the fall. Jackson testified she entered and exited without seeing any hazard and did not know the cause of her fall.
- The Library moved for summary judgment asserting political-subdivision immunity (R.C. Chapter 2744), that Jackson could not identify the cause of her fall, that the defect was trivial, and that the hazard was open and obvious.
- Jackson argued the Library was negligent/wanton in not repairing or warning, offered post-deposition evidence (expert reports and surveillance video), and contended attendant circumstances (cone, doors, a tethered dog, distractions) made the hazard not open and obvious.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the Library, finding the height differential was observable and thus the Library owed no duty; the court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether political-subdivision immunity is overcome under R.C. 2744.02(B)(4) for a physical defect on library grounds | Jackson: The heaved slab was a physical defect causing injury and the Library negligently/wantonly failed to repair or warn | Library: General immunity applies; no applicable exception because hazard was open and obvious and no negligence established | Held: Even if a “physical defect,” Jackson failed to show negligence because hazard was open and obvious, so immunity bars recovery |
| Whether the uneven slab was an open-and-obvious danger removing the Library’s duty | Jackson: The ridge was not open and obvious due to attendant circumstances (orange cone, glass doors, a dog, pedestrian distractions) | Library: The height differential was observable and no evidence showed attendant circumstances actually distracted Jackson | Held: Objective test applied; condition was observable under totality of circumstances; Jackson produced no specific facts of distraction |
| Whether attendant circumstances created a genuine issue of fact to defeat summary judgment | Jackson: Cone, doors, dog, and human behavior could have diverted attention and enhanced danger | Library: No evidence Jackson was distracted or that circumstances materially obscured the hazard | Held: No evidence that attendant circumstances diverted Jackson’s attention; summary judgment appropriate |
| Whether Jackson met her burden to resist summary judgment under Dresher (specific facts) | Jackson: Post-deposition materials (expert report, video), and affidavit evidence created issues for trial | Library: Post-deposition materials did not raise genuine triable issues contradicting deposition | Held: Jackson failed to present specific facts creating a genuine issue; reciprocal Dresher burden unmet |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (de novo review of summary judgment standard)
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (summary judgment test under Civ.R. 56)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (party resisting summary judgment must offer specific facts showing genuine issue)
- Greene Cty. Agricultural Soc. v. Liming, 89 Ohio St.3d 551 (three-tier R.C. 2744 immunity analysis)
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (open-and-obvious doctrine bars negligence duty)
- Simmers v. Bentley Constr. Co., 64 Ohio St.3d 642 (open-and-obvious rationale)
- Stockhauser v. Archdiocese of Cincinnati, 97 Ohio App.3d 29 (attendant circumstances must significantly enhance danger and divert pedestrian's attention)