Kacsmarik v. Lakefront Lines Arena
2011 Ohio 2553
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- April 21, 2007 incident at Lakefront Lines Arena in Parma involving plaintiff's son during an ice hockey practice
- Plaintiff was near the open rink door when a exiting skater struck her, causing ankle injuries
- Manhattan Construction supervised bench installation during arena renovation; bench construction allegedly deviated from architectural plans
- Plaintiff sued Manhattan, Lakefront Lines Arena owner TMJ Investments, and MCG Architects for negligent construction, premises liability, and professional negligence
- Trial court granted summary judgment to Manhattan, TMJ, and MCG; appellate court reviews de novo and affirms
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Manhattan breached a duty and caused plaintiff’s injuries | Manhattan supervised installation of the bench contrary to plans | Record shows bench not installed by Manhattan and not proximate cause | Manhattan owed no proximate causation; bench not the cause |
| Whether TMJ premises liability is barred by open and obvious doctrine | Open and obvious dangers impose a duty to warn | Hazard of standing near open rink door is open and obvious | Open and obvious duty not owed; no breach or causation |
| Whether MCG Architects breached duty of care in architectural design | Architect failed to design spectator separation from players | Evidence lacks qualified expert standard; no duty shown | No duty breach shown; summary judgment for MCG affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Texler v. D.O. Summers Cleaners & Shirt Laundry Co., 81 Ohio St.3d 677 (Ohio 1998) (proximate cause and summary judgment standards guidance)
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (Ohio 2003) (open and obvious doctrine focuses on duty threshold)
- Sidle v. Humphrey, 13 Ohio St.2d 45 (Ohio 1968) (open and obvious doctrine obviates duty)
- Frano v. Red Robin Internatl., Inc., 181 Ohio App.3d 13 (Ohio App. 2009) (open and obvious principle applied to premises liability)
- Konet v. Mark Glassman, Inc., 2005-Ohio-5280 (Ohio) (observability governs open and obvious analysis)
- Cincinnati Riverfront Coliseum, Inc. v. McNulty Co., 28 Ohio St.3d 333 (Ohio 1986) (duty and standard of care for professional negligence in architecture)
- Creech v. Brock & Assoc. Constr., 183 Ohio App.3d 711 (Ohio App. 2009) (summary judgment on proximate cause and construction claims)
- Marsh v. Heartland Behavioral Health Ctr., 2010-Ohio-1380 (Frnkln App.) (proximate cause and burden in negligence actions)