2013 Ohio 1391
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Theresa Mansfield was injured on December 4, 2009 when she tripped over a raised crosswalk seam in Defiance, Ohio, suffering a knee fracture and facial injuries.
- Theresa and James Mansfield filed a complaint on December 2, 2011 against the City of Defiance (and related defendants) alleging negligent maintenance of the crosswalk.
- Defendants answered and discovery included Theresa's deposition and affidavits from Theresa and the City Engineer.
- Both sides moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted the City’s motion on August 2, 2012, applying the two-inch rule and finding the seam insubstantial and lacking attendant circumstances.
- The Mansfields appealed, arguing genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether attendant circumstances rendered the defect substantial.
- The appellate court conducted de novo review and affirmed, holding the two-inch rule applied and attendant circumstances were not shown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the two-inch rule bars the negligence claim. | Mansfields contend defect could be substantial despite height. | City argues seam was under two inches and insubstantial; attendant circumstances not shown. | Two-inch rule bars the claim; no attendant circumstances shown. |
| Whether attendant circumstances existed to render the defect substantial and actionable. | Attendant circumstances (e.g., darkness, visibility) could render defect substantial. | No evidence of such attendant circumstances; plaintiff failed to show foreseeability. | No attendant circumstances established; summary judgment upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cash v. Cincinnati, 66 Ohio St.2d 319 (Ohio 1981) (two-inch rule: height differences ≤2 inches presumed insubstantial unless attendant circumstances render substantial)
- Stockhauser v. Archdiocese of Cincinnati, 97 Ohio App.3d 29 (2d Dist. 1994) (tenor of surrounding circumstances may affect recoverability)
- Gates v. Speedway Superamerica, L.L.C., 2008–Ohio–5131 (8th Dist. No. 90563, 2008) (attendant circumstances may make insubstantial defect actionable)
- Boros v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 2007–Ohio–5720 (8th Dist. No. 89299, 2007) (attendant circumstances may prevent summary judgment)
- Armstrong v. Meade, 2007–Ohio–2820 (6th Dist. No. L–06–1322, 2007) (attendant circumstances and conditions relevant to foreseeability)
- Conley–Slowinski v. Superior Spinning & Stamping Co., 128 Ohio App.3d 360 (1998) (summary judgment standards and burden shifting in Ohio appellate review)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (burden on moving party to show absence of genuine issues of material fact)