Johnson v. Southview Hosp.
2012 Ohio 4974
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Johnson slipped tripping over a metal track of an accordion gate at the cafeteria doorway of Southview Hospital on May 7, 2009.
- She was a business invitee; gate track crossed the doorway floor; photos captured her approach and fall.
- Johnson filed suit on May 4, 2011 asserting the track created a hazard and hospital negligence caused injuries.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Southview Hospital, holding the hazard open and obvious.
- This appeal challenges the open-and-obvious ruling and any attendant-circumstances defenses.
- Photographs and Johnson’s deposition were the sole opposing evidence, with no genuine issue of material fact identified by Johnson.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the hazard was open and obvious as a matter of law | Johnson: | Southview: | Open and obvious; court held no genuine issue; hazard readily observable. |
| Whether attendant circumstances prevented application of open-and-obvious | Johnson contends attendant circumstances existed | Southview argues none existed or distracted from danger | No genuine attendant-circumstances material fact; trial court proper. |
| Whether any disputed attendant-circumstances facts warrant denial of summary judgment | Johnson identifies several potential distractors | Records show such factors were ordinary or non-dispositive | No reversible attendant circumstances; not material to open-and-obvious conclusion. |
| Whether the evidence supports summary judgment given Johnson’s deposition and security photos | Evidence creates factual questions | Evidence shows visible track; no credible contrary inference | Summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Parsons v. Lawson Co., 57 Ohio App.3d 49 (5th Dist.1989) (open-and-obvious standard governed by ordinary inspection)
- Simmers v. Bentley Constr. Co., 64 Ohio St.3d 642 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1992) (open-and-obvious doctrine applies; warning duty bar to recovery)
- Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy, Inc., 18 Ohio St.3d 203 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1985) (open-and-obvious doctrine; danger need not be warned if obvious)
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2003) (open-and-obvious analyzed via objective reasonable-person standard)
- Bumgardner v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2d Dist. Miami No. 2002-CA-11, 2002-Ohio-6856 (2d Dist. 2002) (attendant-circumstances can defeat open-and-obvious)