2018 Ohio 1439
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- On March 12, 2013, Marlene Matus fell while leaving a restaurant operated by The Jacts Group in a building constructed by Golden Dawn, allegedly at an elevated single-riser step and was injured.
- Matus sued The Jacts Group and Golden Dawn on March 11, 2015; deposition and site inspection occurred, but she voluntarily dismissed that action in February 2016.
- Matus refiled substantially the same negligence complaint on February 15, 2017; the trial court ordered that prior discovery apply to the refiled case.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing (1) Matus had previously traversed the step (so was charged with knowledge) and (2) the step was an open and obvious hazard.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; it did not expressly rule on Matus’s motions to deem certain requests for admission admitted or for leave to amend.
- The Ninth District reversed and remanded, concluding defendants failed to meet their initial summary-judgment burden because the record lacked Matus’s deposition testimony showing attendant circumstances relevant to the open-and-obvious analysis; motions left pending on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants were entitled to summary judgment because the step was open and obvious | Matus argued the record lacked her deposition and attendant circumstances that could create a fact issue; open-and-obvious not established | Defendants argued the step was open and obvious, barring negligence | Reversed: defendants did not carry initial burden; record lacked Matus’s deposition addressing discoverability and attendant circumstances, so genuine issue remains |
| Whether prior traversal of the step charged Matus with knowledge (Raflo) | Matus contended Raflo is inapplicable given changes in comparative-negligence law and factual disputes | Defendants asserted prior traversal charged Matus with knowledge of the abnormal step, defeating claim as a matter of law | Not decided on appeal: trial court’s entry lacked analysis; appellate court will not decide issues the trial court did not decide and remanded for further proceedings |
| Whether the trial court denied Matus’s motions (requests for admissions deemed admitted; leave to amend) | Matus argued the court effectively denied or failed to rule on these motions and erred | Defendants implied no error given summary judgment | Not ripe: because summary judgment reversed, those motions remain pending on remand and were not addressed on appeal |
| Whether summary judgment standard was applied correctly | Matus argued moving parties failed initial Dresher burden to show absence of genuine issues of material fact | Defendants claimed evidence (deposition statements, photos) supported no genuine issue | Held: court must view record de novo; defendants failed to show absence of material fact given record deficiencies (missing Matus deposition) |
Key Cases Cited
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (party moving for summary judgment bears initial burden)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (de novo review of summary judgment)
- Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy, Inc., 18 Ohio St.3d 203 (shopkeeper not insurer of customer safety)
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (open-and-obvious doctrine bars liability)
- Simmers v. Bentley Constr. Co., 64 Ohio St.3d 642 (open-and-obvious hazard functions as warning)
- Raflo v. Losantiville Country Club, 34 Ohio St.2d 1 (prior traversal can charge party with knowledge of abnormal step)