King v. E. Worthington Village
2013 Ohio 4160
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Plaintiff Maureen King slipped on ice on the sidewalk outside her apartment building, owned by East Village, on Feb. 1, 2011.
- The building and sidewalk are operated by East Worthington Village entities; King sued for negligence.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for East Village on Jan. 22, 2013.
- Evidence showed below-freezing temps, overnight freezing rain, no salt applied that morning, and ice near a downspout.
- The court applied the no-duty rule for natural accumulations of ice and snow, finding no duty to remove or warn.
- King appeals the summary judgment ruling on the negligence claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a duty exists for natural ice accumulation | King argues there is a dispute about an abnormal/unnatural accumulation. | East Village contends only a natural accumulation was present; no duty to remove or warn. | No duty; no-accumulation exception applies; judgment affirmed. |
| Whether East Village was negligent in salt treatment | Past salting practices show a potential duty to maintain safe sidewalks. | Imposing such a duty would deter landlords and is not required for natural accumulations. | No duty; past practice not enough to create liability. |
| Whether appellant created a fact issue with an affidavit | Affidavit suggests an unnatural accumulation caused by gutters. | Affidavit contradicted by prior deposition; cannot create issue of fact. | Affidavit cannot create issue; even if considered, no expert support. [] |
| Whether design defects or gutter/downspout evidence show negligence | Ice resulted from gutter/downspout design creating an abnormal accumulation. | No evidence East Village knew of or created defects; not negligence. | No evidence of design defect; natural accumulation remains controlling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thatcher v. Lauffer Ravines, 2012-Ohio-6193 (10th Dist. No. 11AP-851 (2012)) (no duty to remove natural ice; courtesy not a duty)
- Kaeppner v. Leading Mgt., 2006-Ohio-3588 (10th Dist. No. 05AP-1324 (2006)) (nominally addresses natural vs. unnatural accumulation; summary judgment standard)
- Simmers v. Bentley Constr. Co., 64 Ohio St.3d 642 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1992) (duty analysis based on foreseeability and relationship)
- Hall v. Circle K, 2013-Ohio-3793 (10th Dist. No. 12AP-900 (2013)) (open-and-obvious ice; no issue for trial)
- Notman v. AM/PM, 2004-Ohio-344 (11th Dist. No. 2002-T-0144 (2004)) (construction/diagnostic testimony required for defect)
- Byrd v. Smith, 2006-Ohio-3455 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2006) (consistency; inconsistent affidavit cannot create issue)