2016 Ohio 5295
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Plaintiff Andrea Lattimore tripped on the edge (rise) of a handicap ramp immediately after entering K & A Market and fell.
- A handrail that once existed on the ramp had been removed by the market (with property owner’s permission) prior to the incident.
- A city building inspector issued the property owner a notice of violation under a Cincinnati Municipal Code provision requiring railings be maintained in good repair.
- Lattimore sued the store (occupier) and the property owner for negligence and negligence per se.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, concluding the hazard was open and obvious and that the cited municipal-code provision did not support negligence per se.
- The First District Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants owed a duty despite the hazard being open and obvious | Lattimore argued attendant circumstances (a bright snack display) distracted her, so the rise was not open and obvious | Defendants argued the rise was visible, marked, and thus an open-and-obvious danger excusing duty | Court held the rise was open and obvious; attendant circumstances (ordinary store display) did not change that result |
| Whether negligence per se applied based on Cincinnati Municipal Code requiring railings be maintained in good repair | Lattimore argued the notice-of-violation established a statutory breach creating duty and negligence per se | Defendants argued the code provision did not mandate a railing’s existence (only maintenance) and thus could not supply negligence per se | Court held negligence per se did not apply because the municipal provision did not impose a clear duty to have a railing in place |
Key Cases Cited
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (recognizes open-and-obvious doctrine as negating duty)
- Simmers v. Bentley Constr. Co., 64 Ohio St.3d 642 (explains rationale for open-and-obvious rule)
- McGuire v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 118 Ohio App.3d 494 (attendant-circumstances test for open-and-obvious hazards)
- Lang v. Holly Hill Motel, Inc., 122 Ohio St.3d 120 (statutory duties may override open-and-obvious; negligence per se framework)
- Mann v. Northgate Investors, L.L.C., 138 Ohio St.3d 175 (negligence per se requires a positive, definite standard of care in the enactment)