Martin v. Giant Eagle, Inc.
2014 Ohio 2657
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Donald Martin slipped and fell on water tracked into the entrance of a Giant Eagle store on a rainy/snowy Thanksgiving eve; he sued for negligence.
- Martin testified he did not notice the water until after he fell; several witnesses said other patrons had tracked in wet footprints.
- Giant Eagle employees acknowledged weather was inclement, had policies to monitor the lobby and tools (mats, blowers, wet-floor signs) but said none were in use and the manager who prepared the incident report did not observe water.
- Plaintiff argued heavy pedestrian traffic and congestion (6–15 people entering/exiting) were attendant circumstances preventing discovery of the hazard.
- Plaintiff also alleged an initial incident report noting water was lost or replaced (spoliation) and argued store policies and superior knowledge imposed a duty to take precautions.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Giant Eagle; the Tenth District affirmed, concluding tracked-in water is an open-and-obvious hazard and no genuine factual disputes prevented judgment as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether tracked-in water was open and obvious or whether attendant circumstances (crowd/traffic) prevented discovery | Martin: heavy pedestrian traffic and congestion distracted him and prevented him from seeing the water | Giant Eagle: tracked-in water from inclement weather is observable and thus an open-and-obvious hazard | Court: Tracked-in water is open and obvious; the pedestrian traffic was not an attendant circumstance sufficient to create a factual issue |
| Whether Giant Eagle had a heightened duty based on internal safety policies or superior knowledge of the hazard | Martin: store policies and knowledge of weather created a duty to deploy mats/signs and impose liability for failing to do so | Giant Eagle: internal policies do not create a legal standard of care or superior knowledge beyond the invitee | Court: Violation of internal policy does not establish legal duty or superior knowledge; no duty imposed beyond the ordinary premise-occupier duty |
| Whether alleged loss/alteration of an initial incident report (spoliation) created a triable issue | Martin: witness said an employee was taking an incident report that later disappeared, suggesting spoliation and credibility issues | Giant Eagle: only the manager prepared the report; plaintiff offered no proof of willful destruction | Court: Plaintiff failed to show willful destruction or disruption required for spoliation; no genuine factual dispute from the record |
Key Cases Cited
- Strother v. Hutchinson, 67 Ohio St.2d 282 (recognizing duty, breach, proximate cause elements for negligence)
- Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy, Inc., 18 Ohio St.3d 203 (store owners owe invitees ordinary care to maintain premises)
- Simmers v. Bentley Constr. Co., 64 Ohio St.3d 642 (open-and-obvious doctrine explained)
- Boles v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 153 Ohio St. 381 (tracked-in water from outside ordinarily imposes no liability on store owner)
- S.S. Kresge Co. v. Fader, 116 Ohio St. 718 (weather-caused tracked-in conditions are foreseeable and commonly known)