2019 Ohio 1217
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Plaintiff Susan Ligon tripped and fell on a black mat while walking from a parking lot to the laundry facility at Winton Woods Park and sued Great Parks for negligence.
- Ligon alleged Great Parks negligently placed/maintained the mat, knew or should have known it was unsafe, and that her injuries were foreseeable.
- At deposition Ligon testified she noticed the mat as she approached but did not observe the raised flap (a “hump” or “tepee”) she later stepped under; she said a nearby large trash receptacle partly blocked the view.
- Great Parks moved for summary judgment, arguing the mat presented an open and obvious danger, eliminating any duty to warn.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Great Parks, finding the mat was open and obvious and thus Great Parks owed no duty.
- The court of appeals affirmed, concluding no genuine issue of material fact existed as to the open-and-obvious nature of the hazard and that any alleged attendant circumstance (the trash can) was insufficient to create a factual dispute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Great Parks owed a duty given the condition of the mat | Ligon: mat placement/raised flap created a hidden hazard; attendant circumstances (trash can) distracted her and made hazard not open and obvious | Great Parks: mat was large, visible, and objectively open and obvious; no duty to warn | Mat was objectively open and obvious; no duty owed, summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether attendant circumstances created a factual dispute about open-and-obvious nature | Ligon: trash receptacle blocked view and distracted her, creating an issue of fact | Great Parks: receptacle did not meaningfully obscure the hazard or create sufficient distraction | Court: trash can did not rise to attendant-circumstance level to defeat summary judgment |
| Whether claimant’s subjective unawareness controls the open-and-obvious analysis | Ligon: she didn’t see the flap | Great Parks: objective standard governs; subjective unawareness is not dispositive | Court applied objective standard; plaintiff’s personal lack of awareness did not create a dispute |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate | Ligon: factual issues remain about visibility and distraction | Great Parks: evidence viewed in nonmoving party’s favor still leads only to adverse conclusion | Court: summary judgment proper—no genuine issue of material fact on duty issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 671 N.E.2d 241 (Ohio 1996) (standard for de novo review of summary judgment)
- Menifee v. Ohio Welding Prods., Inc., 15 Ohio St.3d 75, 472 N.E.2d 707 (Ohio 1984) (elements of negligence)
- Lang v. Holly Hill Motel, Inc., 122 Ohio St.3d 120, 909 N.E.2d 120 (Ohio 2009) (no duty where danger is open and obvious)
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79, 788 N.E.2d 1088 (Ohio 2003) (open-and-obvious doctrine described as negating duty)
- State ex rel. Howard v. Ferreri, 70 Ohio St.3d 587, 639 N.E.2d 1189 (Ohio 1994) (summary judgment standard)