Johnson v. Wal-Mart Stores E., L.P.
12 N.E.3d 1262
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Johnson hit by a Wal-Mart motorized cart in a Springfield, Ohio store; incident occurred in August 2010 in a long, wide aisle with a center display; pillow display six feet high partially obstructed Johnson’s view; collision occurred just beyond the display with Buchanan in another cart; Johnson sued Wal-Mart and Buchanan, with Bill Johnson later dismissed and a default against Buchanan.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to warn about cart use and store dangers | Johnson alleged Wal-Mart failed to warn about cart use and hidden risks. | Wal-Mart argues no duty to warn about collisions and eye-level displays. | No duty to warn or instruct about cart use; danger was not a hidden risk. |
| Proximate cause and causation standards for summary judgment | Johnson claims Wal-Mart’s lack of instruction and maintenance caused the injury. | Wal-Mart contends there is no causal link supported by evidence. | No genuine issue of material fact; not causally connected to Wal-Mart’s conduct. |
| Duty regarding displays above eye-level in aisles | Johnson alleged displays above eye-level contributed to a blind intersection. | Aisle blindness is inherent; no duty to keep displays below eye-level. | Wal-Mart had no duty to limit displays above eye-level. |
| Adequacy of Wal-Mart’s notice of improper cart operation | Wal-Mart should have informed Buchanan on proper cart operation. | No allegation that improper operation caused the injury; instruction not shown to be lacking. | Not a genuine issue; lack of evidence of causal link. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wing v. Anchor Media, Ltd. of Texas, 59 Ohio St.3d 108 (Ohio 1991) (summary-judgment burden on moving party; initial showing required)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (clarified initial burden in summary judgment post-Celotex)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (moving party must show basis for relief and absence of fact issues)
- Perry v. Eastgreen Realty Co., 53 Ohio St.2d 51 (Ohio 1978) (illustrates when danger is visible; duty analysis)
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64 (Ohio 1978) (participants must show lack of genuine issues of material fact)
- Kulch v. Structural Fibers, Inc., 78 Ohio St.3d 134 (Ohio 1997) (limits and standards for summary judgment burden)