2025 Ohio 169
Ohio Ct. App.2025Background
- Daneen Madaras slipped and fell on black ice outside an Applebee’s restaurant in Middleburg Heights, Ohio, in February 2021, during freezing, sunny conditions.
- Madaras claimed the ice was caused by water dripping from an awning over the entrance that refroze and was not visible (black ice).
- She alleged Applebee’s was negligent in causing or failing to remediate/warn about this alleged "unnatural" accumulation.
- Applebee’s moved for summary judgment, arguing the hazard was a natural accumulation, open and obvious, and not noticeably more dangerous than typical Ohio winter conditions.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Applebee’s, finding no unnatural accumulation, no actual or constructive notice, and that the hazard was open and obvious.
- Madaras appealed, arguing the ice was an unnatural accumulation caused by a man-made condition (the awning), and that Applebee’s had notice or should have corrected/warned.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the ice an open and obvious hazard? | Ice was not visible (black ice), so not open and obvious. | Icy conditions in Ohio winters are open and obvious; no duty to warn of natural ice. | Hazard was open and obvious; no duty to warn. |
| Was the ice an unnatural accumulation created by Applebee's? | Ice formed due to awning without proper drainage; awning created unnatural accumulation. | No evidence the awning caused ice; ice formation from awning snowmelt is natural under Ohio law. | No unnatural accumulation; awning did not create hazard. |
| Did Applebee's have actual or constructive notice? | Ice routinely formed due to design; employees should have known of the hazard. | No complaints or prior issues with ice; no evidence awning dripped that day. | No actual or constructive notice by Applebee's. |
| Was the hazard substantially more dangerous than Madaras should have anticipated? | Black ice in a specific location was more dangerous than usual. | Formation of black ice during winter is foreseeable in Ohio. | Not more dangerous than reasonably anticipated by invitee. |
Key Cases Cited
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., 2003-Ohio-2573 (Ohi. 2003) (articulates open-and-obvious doctrine for landowner duty)
- LaCourse v. Fleitz, 28 Ohio St.3d 209 (Ohio 1986) (no duty to remove natural accumulations of snow and ice)
- Sidle v. Humphrey, 13 Ohio St.2d 45 (Ohio 1968) (outlines the no-duty winter rule for natural snow/ice)
- Menifee v. Ohio Welding Prods., Inc., 15 Ohio St.3d 75 (Ohio 1984) (elements for premises liability claim)
- Brinkman v. Ross, 68 Ohio St.3d 82 (Ohio 1993) (clarifies landowner liability under the no-duty winter rule)
- Mussivand v. David, 45 Ohio St.3d 314 (Ohio 1989) (duty is a question of law for the court)