Jacobsen v. Coon Restoration & Sealants, Inc.
2011 Ohio 3563
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Jacobsen parked in the gas-station lot adjacent to a pizza shop in Louisville, Stark County, Ohio; the two parking lots are separated by bumpers.
- A broken metal sign/post protruded from dry, dead grass in the parking lot where Jacobsen tripped.
- The pizza-shop owner rented the premises from Northmark, Inc.; the sign had been damaged by a winter snow plow and partially removed, leaving a stump.
- Cindy Jacobsen tripped over the metal stump while returning to her vehicle, claiming the hazard caused serious injuries.
- The trial court granted Northmark summary judgment on open-and-obvious grounds, focusing on the plaintiff’s conduct and visibility; the evidence showed some attendant circumstances but the court found no genuine issue for trial.
- The appellate court reversed, holding that reasonable minds could differ on openness/obviousness and attendant circumstances; remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the hazard was open and obvious as a matter of law | Jacobsen argues the metal stump was not open and obvious given attendant circumstances. | Northmark argues the hazard was open and obvious and owed no duty to warn. | Open and obvious question for jury; not dispositive as a matter of law. |
| Whether attendant circumstances negate open-and-obvious duty | Jacobsen asserts attendant circumstances could negate the open-and-obvious defense. | Northmark contends no attendant circumstances existed to negate the doctrine. | Attendant circumstances could raise a fact issue; summary judgment improper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (Ohio 2003) (open-and-obvious governs duty; focus on duty, not causation)
- Sidle v. Humphrey, 13 Ohio St.2d 45 (Ohio 1968) (premises liability duty limits for open-and-obvious hazards)
- Texler v. D.O. Summers Cleaners & Laundry Co., 81 Ohio St.3d 677 (Ohio 1998) (open-and-obvious doctrine analysis)
- Jackson v. Kings Island, 58 Ohio St.2d 357 (Ohio 1979) (duty and open-and-obvious considerations in premises liability)
- Cash v. Cincinnati, 66 Ohio St.2d 319 (Ohio 1981) (attendant circumstances defined as factors increasing danger)