2019 Ohio 5276
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- On June 6, 2015, Denise Kohler (a business invitee) struck her left shin on the corner of a large stationary recycling cart (approx. 5'x4' with an orange bin and red trim) in the parking lot of Camp Runinmuck after leaving its restaurant; she fell and broke her left elbow, requiring surgery and therapy.
- The incident occurred after dark; Kohler testified the area was "sufficiently lit," she did not use her phone flashlight, and she would have seen the cart had she looked at it, though she did not notice the protruding cart edge.
- Appellees argued the cart was an open and obvious hazard and moved for summary judgment; they also disputed that any attendant circumstances (lighting or color blending) prevented discovery of the hazard.
- Kohler opposed summary judgment, arguing the cart blended into the pavement and that glare from a building light distracted her (attendant circumstances), and noted appellees sometimes used cones around the cart.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to appellees; Kohler appealed. The Sixth District affirmed, holding the cart was observable and the alleged attendant circumstances did not negate the open-and-obvious doctrine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the cart was an open-and-obvious hazard | Kohler: darkness, shadow, and similar coloring made the protruding cart edge not discoverable | Camp Runinmuck: cart was large, in plain view, with an orange bin and red trim — observable | Cart was open and obvious; owner owed no duty regarding the hazard |
| Whether attendant circumstances (glare, color blending) defeat the doctrine | Kohler: light shining into her eyes and the cart blending with pavement reduced her ability to detect the hazard | Camp Runinmuck: lighting was sufficient; Kohler saw the bin and was not distracted; trim contrasted with pavement | No attendant circumstances existed to excuse Kohler; court rejected her distraction and blending claims |
| Whether darkness alone negates the doctrine | Kohler: incident was at night, reducing visibility | Camp Runinmuck: darkness is an observable condition and does not automatically bar the doctrine | Lack of daylight alone does not defeat open-and-obvious rule; here lighting was adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Mussivand v. David, 45 Ohio St.3d 314, 544 N.E.2d 265 (states elements of negligence and premises liability)
- Light v. Ohio University, 28 Ohio St.3d 66, 502 N.E.2d 611 (defines business invitee/relationship-based duty)
- Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy, Inc., 18 Ohio St.3d 203, 480 N.E.2d 474 (landowner duty to warn of latent dangers)
- Sidle v. Humphrey, 13 Ohio St.2d 45, 233 N.E.2d 589 (announces open-and-obvious doctrine barring duty)
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79, 788 N.E.2d 1088 (restates that open-and-obvious hazards relieve owners of duty)
- Simmers v. Bentley Constr. Co., 64 Ohio St.3d 642, 597 N.E.2d 504 (explains rationale that an open danger serves as its own warning)