2012 Ohio 4686
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Lambert injured September 6, 2007 after arm contacted a Sack ‘N Save shopping cart edge.
- Injury led to a staph infection treated with IV antibiotics and two surgeries.
- Lambert filed negligence suit against Sack ‘N Save on September 10, 2010.
- Sack ‘N Save moved for summary judgment on October 31, 2011, arguing the cart condition was open and obvious.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Sack ‘N Save, and Lambert appeals the decision.
- Appellate court reviews the open-and-obvious issue de novo and affirms the trial court’s judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the cart’s design was an open and obvious danger | Lambert contends the cart design was not open and obvious | Sack ‘N Save contends the cart’s design was open and obvious | Open and obvious; no duty to warn or protect |
Key Cases Cited
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (2003-Ohio-2573) (premises-duty analysis in open-and-obvious context)
- Sidle v. Humphrey, 13 Ohio St.2d 45, 233 N.E.2d 589 (1968) (open-and-obvious hazard doctrine; duty no longer exists for obvious dangers)
- Nageotte v. Cafaro Co., 160 Ohio App.3d 702, 828 N.E.2d 683 (2005-Ohio 2098) (court may decide open-and-obvious issue as a matter of law when no facts disputed)
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Company, Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (2003-Ohio-2573) (see above (duplicate entry to emphasize duty framework))