2023 Ohio 3518
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- On Jan. 3, 2019, Cleveland Clinic employee Deanna Johnson slipped on ice in the Twinsburg Family Health and Surgery Center employee parking lot and fractured her ankle.
- Cleveland Clinic (CCF) owned the facility; CBRE was the facility manager overseeing vendors; Davey Tree was the contracted grounds-maintenance vendor (2013 contract extended through 2019).
- In March 2017 CBRE investigated complaints and determined groundwater/runoff from a 2016 helipad flowed into the parking lot; CCF instructed Davey to monitor and salt as needed.
- Johnson knew of intermittent wet/runoff areas and frequent salting at that spot, and testified she did not see ice immediately before her fall.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for CBRE and Davey, finding (1) Ohio’s no‑duty winter rule or natural‑accumulation principles barred recovery, (2) no contractual duty ran to Johnson as a third‑party beneficiary, and (3) even if open‑and‑obvious applied it would bar recovery; Johnson appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ice was an "unnatural accumulation" (duty question) | Johnson: runoff from a man‑made elevated helipad created an unnatural accumulation increasing danger | CBRE/Davey: runoff/water was natural (groundwater/meteoric) and did not become "unnatural" merely by flowing from an elevated surface; no act by defendants created or aggravated hazard | Held: Ice was natural for purposes of the winter rule; Johnson failed to show defendants created/aggravated an unnatural accumulation, so no duty owed |
| Whether defendants had superior knowledge of a hidden, more dangerous condition | Johnson: defendants knew or should have known of recurring runoff/ice and thus had superior knowledge | CBRE/Davey: limited notice (2017), no ongoing prior notice of ice on date at issue; CCF instructed routine monitoring/salting; defendants lacked superior knowledge of a hidden danger | Held: No genuine issue that defendants had superior knowledge of a hazard beyond what an invitee could discover; summary judgment affirmed |
| Applicability of the open‑and‑obvious doctrine to independent contractors | Johnson: (argued) open‑and‑obvious may not completely bar recovery? | Defendants: parking‑lot ice was open/obvious; plaintiff aware of wet spot and salting | Held: Court erred applying open‑and‑obvious to independent contractors (Simmers), but error was harmless because negligence/contract claims failed on other grounds |
| Breach of contract claims (Davey duty; CBRE supervision) | Johnson: Davey and CBRE breached contractual/supervisory duties to remove/monitor ice and/or were contractually required to prevent this hazard | Davey: contract disclaims third‑party beneficiaries and its ice‑removal obligations were triggered by snowfall, not isolated runoff; CBRE: performed investigation and reported to CCF and had no further supervisory duty once CCF chose measures | Held: Davey owed no contractual duty to Johnson (not a third‑party beneficiary); Davey’s snow/ice duty was tied to snowfall events; CBRE fulfilled contractual investigation/reporting duties and had no further breached supervisory duty; summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (1996) (summary judgment standard is reviewed de novo)
- Murphy v. Reynoldsburg, 65 Ohio St.3d 356 (1992) (trial court must view evidence in favor of nonmoving party on summary judgment)
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (1977) (Civ.R. 56(C) standard articulated)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (movant’s and non‑movant’s burdens on summary judgment)
- Simmers v. Bentley Constr. Co., 64 Ohio St.3d 642 (1992) (open‑and‑obvious doctrine and limits regarding independent contractors)
- Sidle v. Humphrey, 13 Ohio St.2d 45 (1968) (open‑and‑obvious doctrine foundational case)
- Brinkman v. Ross, 68 Ohio St.3d 82 (1993) (Ohio no‑duty winter rule: no duty to remove natural accumulations)
- LaCourse v. Fleitz, 28 Ohio St.3d 209 (1986) (owners may assume invitees will discover natural ice/snow hazards)
- Alexander v. Buckeye Pipeline Co., 53 Ohio St.2d 241 (1978) (contract interpretation focuses on plain language)
- Hamilton Ins. Servs. v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 86 Ohio St.3d 270 (1999) (court’s objective in contract construction is to give effect to parties’ intent)
- Turner v. Turner, 67 Ohio St.3d 337 (1993) (credibility determinations inappropriate on summary judgment)
- Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy, Inc., 18 Ohio St.3d 203 (1985) (landowner owes business invitees ordinary care to maintain safe premises)