Kronjak v. New Plaza Mgt. L.L.C.
2017 Ohio 1184
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On July 19, 2014, Eleanor Kronjak fell in a shopping plaza parking lot after stepping into a hole adjacent to her car and fractured her wrist and injured her hip/leg.
- The hole measured roughly 6" deep, 2–2.5" long, and 18" wide and was partially located underneath the passenger side of the Kronjaks’ vehicle.
- The Kronjaks regularly patronized the plaza restaurant; they parked farther away that night because handicap spaces were occupied.
- Plaintiffs sued New Plaza Management, LLC for negligence; Mr. Kronjak also asserted a loss-of-consortium claim.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for New Plaza Management, concluding the hole was an open and obvious hazard and the owner owed no duty to warn; the Kronjaks appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the parking-lot hole was an open and obvious danger | Hole blended with pavement and was partly under the car, so it was not open and obvious | Photographs and testimony show the hole was observable and parking lot needed repair; no unusual attendant circumstances | Hole was open and obvious; owner owed no duty to warn; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether attendant circumstances precluded application of the open-and-obvious doctrine | The hole being obscured by the couple’s vehicle and visibility conditions made discovery unreasonable | No evidence of owner-created or unusual attendant circumstances; plaintiff’s vehicle obscuring the hole is not owner-made | No attendant circumstances of the owner’s making; doctrine applies |
| Whether plaintiff’s unawareness defeats objective open-and-obvious inquiry | Plaintiff’s subjective failure to see the hole shows it wasn’t obvious | Objective test controls; plaintiff’s lack of notice is not dispositive | Subjective unawareness irrelevant; objective discoverability controls |
| Whether derivative loss-of-consortium survives absent negligence claim | Loss-of-consortium claim stands independently | Derivative claim fails if underlying negligence fails | Derivative claim fails with the negligence claim; summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (summary judgment reviewed de novo)
- Murphy v. Reynoldsburg, 65 Ohio St.3d 356 (summary judgment view facts most favorably to nonmoving party)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (movant’s initial burden on summary judgment explained)
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (open-and-obvious danger bars landowner’s duty)
- Simmers v. Bentley Constr. Co., 64 Ohio St.3d 642 (open-and-obvious nature of hazard serves as warning)
- Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy, Inc., 18 Ohio St.3d 203 (shopkeeper not insurer of customer’s safety)
- Light v. Ohio Univ., 28 Ohio St.3d 66 (owner’s duty to invitees to maintain premises safely)
- Bowen v. Kil-Kare, Inc., 63 Ohio St.3d 84 (loss-of-consortium is derivative of spouse’s tort)