2020 Ohio 703
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Patricia Lowe fell entering a union hall used as a polling place on Nov. 3, 2015; she fractured both wrists and sued the union and the Lucas County Board of Elections for premises negligence.
- Plaintiffs alleged Patricia’s shoe caught under an entry floor mat placed over an inclined ramp behind the entry doors; they argued the mat placement was hazardous and not discernible in the exercise of ordinary care.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment: the BOE asserted immunity and argued the hazard was open and obvious; the union argued Patricia was at most a licensee and that the mat/incline were open and obvious.
- The trial court granted defendants’ motions, finding the mat and incline were open and obvious; plaintiffs appealed.
- Key record evidence: Patricia’s deposition admissions that she had used the same door previously without incident, that she would have seen the curled mat had she looked down, eyewitness testimony, and photographs of the entryway; an errata to Patricia’s depo attempted to clarify causation but did not change the outcome.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the floor mat and incline were an open-and-obvious hazard | Mat concealed the incline, not marked, approach angle and distractions made it not reasonably discoverable | Photographs and depositions show the mat and slope were visible; P admitted she would have seen the curled mat if she looked | Hazard was open and obvious; defendants owed no duty; summary judgment upheld |
| Whether statutory/regulatory violations (R.C. 3501.29, ADA, Secretary of State regs, building code) create negligence per se | Violations made the entry noncompliant and thus negligence per se | Statutes/regulations cited are general or administrative, aimed at handicapped voters; P wasn’t shown to be in protected class; administrative rules do not create per se negligence | No negligence per se: statutes/regs here do not supply a definitive standard of care that gives rise to per se liability; open-and-obvious not displaced |
| Whether the union’s placement of the mat constituted “active negligence” avoiding the open-and-obvious bar | Union actively created the hazard by placing an unsecured mat over the incline | No proof mat was placed over the incline at the time of entry; placement occurred before P arrived and became a static condition | No evidence of active negligence; exception inapplicable |
| Whether attendant circumstances (voter intent, husband, approach) diverted P’s attention and defeat the doctrine | Attendant circumstances diverted Patricia’s attention so she couldn’t discover the hazard | Those circumstances were ordinary, not unusual, and not within owner’s control | Attendant-circumstances exception does not apply; ordinary factors don’t defeat open-and-obvious |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (summary judgment reviewed de novo)
- Dupler v. Mansfield Journal, 64 Ohio St.2d 116 (appellate review and de novo principles)
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64 (summary judgment standard)
- Mussivand v. David, 45 Ohio St.3d 314 (premises liability requires duty and breach)
- Light v. Ohio University, 28 Ohio St.3d 66 (classification of entrant: invitee vs. licensee)
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (open-and-obvious doctrine negates duty)
- Simmers v. Bentley Constr. Co., 64 Ohio St.3d 642 (rationale for open-and-obvious rule)
- Lang v. Holly Hill Motel, Inc., 122 Ohio St.3d 120 (statutory violations can create negligence per se in appropriate circumstances)
- Robinson v. Bates, 112 Ohio St.3d 17 (negligence per se principles)
- Chambers v. St. Mary’s School, 82 Ohio St.3d 563 (administrative rule violations do not constitute negligence per se)
- Mann v. Northgate Investors, L.L.C., 138 Ohio St.3d 175 (statute must set a positive, definite standard to create negligence per se)