Jenkins v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
2013 Ohio 5106
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Jenkins, a 55-year-old paraplegic inmate at North Central Correctional Institution, fell from his wheelchair due to a crack in the sidewalk during a medical transport on Oct. 2, 2010.
- Jenkins filed suit against the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction in the Court of Claims on Apr. 5, 2011, alleging negligent sidewalk maintenance and a defective wheelchair.
- ODRC moved for summary judgment on Dec. 5, 2011; the Court of Claims denied the motion on Feb. 9, 2012.
- A liability-only trial occurred Mar. 6, 2012; the magistrate ruled for ODRC on Jun. 11, 2012, and the trial court overruled objections and entered judgment for ODRC on Aug. 20, 2012.
- On appeal, Jenkins argued the sidewalk was a hazardous condition, ODRC lacked notice, the two-inch rule applied, attendant circumstances and wheelchair issues showed negligence, and exhibits supported liability; the court affirmed for ODRC.
- The court applied negligence standards in a custodial context and applied open-and-obvious, notice, and two-inch-rule doctrines to assess liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the sidewalk defect a hazardous condition? | Jenkins contends the deteriorated sidewalk was hazardous to wheelchair users. | ODRC contends the defect was insubstantial and open and obvious, not creating liability. | Not hazardous; defendant wins |
| Did ODRC have actual or constructive notice of the defect? | ODRC had knowledge via maintenance records and staff experiences and delayed repairs. | No actual or constructive notice shown; defect not proven to have existed for a time to trigger liability. | No notice shown; defendant wins |
| Does the two-inch rule apply to prison walkways? | The two-inch rule may not apply to prison sidewalks; any defect could be substantial given wheelchair use. | The two-inch rule applies to walkways generally, including government and prison property. | Two-inch rule applicable; defendant wins |
| Do attendant circumstances or open-and-obvious doctrine negate liability? | Rain, poor lighting, and wheelchair use should be attendant circumstances that raise risk and negate open-and-obvious status. | Attendant circumstances did not significantly enhance danger; open-and-obvious condition did not create a duty to warn. | Open-and-obvious; attendant circumstances insufficient; defendant wins |
| Was the alleged defective wheelchair without restraints a negligent cause of injury? | Providing a known defective wheelchair without restraints caused the fall. | Wheelchair standard issue; no evidence of knowledge of defect or duty to furnish restraints; not negligent. | No duty/causation shown; defendant wins |
Key Cases Cited
- Backus v. Giant Eagle, Inc., 115 Ohio App.3d 155 (Ct. App. 1996) (minor sidewalk defects generally not liable to pedestrians)
- Kimball v. Cincinnati, 160 Ohio St. 370 (1953) (two-inch rule for defects; insubstantial if ≤2 inches)
- Cash v. Cincinnati, 66 Ohio St.2d 319 (1981) (defect height and open-and-obvious doctrine considerations)
- Presley v. Norwood, 36 Ohio St.2d 29 (1973) (constructive notice concepts and duties in premises liability)