Liggins v. Giant Eagle McCutcheon & Stelzer
2019 Ohio 1250
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- On March 1, 2014 LaDonna Liggins, a business invitee, slipped and fell on olive oil in Giant Eagle's Columbus store between the bakery and produce sections and was injured.
- Employees observed the broken bottle and spill, applied Spill Magic (an absorbent powder) and removed the broken bottle; the floor still appeared somewhat slick.
- Employees placed at least one yellow "Caution Wet Floor" cone, left briefly to get additional supplies, and before they returned Liggins (who had seen the cone about eight feet away) walked gingerly and fell; an employee witnessed the fall within about ten minutes of the spill.
- Plaintiffs sued for negligence/premises liability alleging failure to promptly remove the hazard, inadequate warning, and violation of the store's internal safety policies (e.g., two-cone rule; employee remain at scene).
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Giant Eagle; the Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding employees took prompt, reasonable steps and gave adequate warning as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Giant Eagle breached its duty by not promptly removing the spill | Liggins: employees did not fully remove oil and left the area before completion, creating a genuine issue of material fact | Giant Eagle: employees took immediate, reasonable steps (absorbent powder, removed bottle, sought more supplies) and left only briefly after placing a cone | Court: No genuine issue — steps were prompt and reasonable; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether the warning was adequate | Liggins: single cone and not following two-cone policy was inadequate notice | Giant Eagle: placed at least one visible cone; Liggins testified she saw and understood the cone | Court: No genuine issue — warning was adequate as a matter of law; plaintiff was on notice |
| Whether violation of internal safety policies creates negligence per se | Liggins: failure to follow store policy (two cones; employee remain) establishes breach | Giant Eagle: internal policies do not create or heighten legal duties; common-law Johnson test controls | Court: Internal policies do not impose new legal duties; violations do not automatically create factual disputes |
| Whether summary judgment was procedurally proper | Liggins: disputed factual inferences preclude summary judgment | Giant Eagle: record evidence meets Dresher burden and plaintiff offered no specific contrary facts | Court: De novo review finds no genuine dispute of material fact; summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Wagner Provision Co., 141 Ohio St. 584 (1943) (establishes the three-part common-law test for storekeeper liability in slip-and-fall cases)
- Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy, Inc., 18 Ohio St.3d 203 (1985) (shopkeeper owes invitees ordinary care but is not an insurer)
- Mussivand v. David, 45 Ohio St.3d 314 (1989) (plaintiff must show breach of duty and resulting injury)
- S.S. Kresge Co. v. Fader, 116 Ohio St. 718 (1927) (premises owner duty to invitees)