Kobasko v. Jo's Dairy Dream, L.L.C., 2015 Ohio 496

Delivery driver David Kobasko (business invitee) entered Jo’s Dairy Dream around 4:00 a.m. to deliver ice cream mix; he had never been inside before.
Ceiling lights were off; the store had low lighting from a nightlight and a Pepsi cooler; parties disputed how well the entrance was illuminated.
Kobasko entered walking backward on a dolly and, after passing the threshold, fell down an unguarded open stairway located roughly 4–4.5 feet inside the entrance.
Plaintiffs sued Jo’s for negligence, alleging Jo’s failed to maintain safe premises and warn of the hazard.
Jo’s moved for summary judgment asserting the open-and-obvious doctrine: the darkness/stairway was an open and obvious danger, so no duty to warn.
The trial court granted summary judgment for Jo’s; the appellate majority reversed, finding genuine factual issues about lighting, proximity of the stairway, and attendant circumstances; one judge dissented.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Jo’s owed a duty to warn/invitee protection despite the dark entrance	Kobasko: dim lighting and very short distance from door to open stair created attendant circumstances; factual question for jury	Jo’s: darkness/stair was open and obvious; no duty to warn; danger was easily avoidable	Reversed: genuine issue of material fact exists (lighting/proximity/attendant circumstances) — jury question

Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., 788 N.E.2d 1088 (Ohio 2003) (open-and-obvious dangers relieve landowner of duty)
Jeswald v. Hutt, 239 N.E.2d 37 (Ohio 1968) (darkness is a warning of danger and generally not to be disregarded)
Hissong v. Miller, 927 N.E.2d 1161 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010) (whether danger is open and obvious can be a jury question where doorway concealed stairs)
Light v. Ohio Univ., 502 N.E.2d 611 (Ohio 1986) (definition and duties owed to business invitees)
Simmers v. Bentley Constr. Co., 597 N.E.2d 504 (Ohio 1992) (expectation that entrants will discover open-and-obvious dangers)