2020 Ohio 1173
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- On March 12, 2013, Matus fell at a restaurant when she stepped off a single step in an elevated seating area while exiting; she claimed the step was not obvious and injured her heel.
- The area had distinct floor coverings, ‘‘CAUTION STEP DOWN’’ signs, a short handrail, and recessed rope lighting near the step edge (defendants said the rope light was on continuously; Matus disputed this).
- Matus originally sued in 2015, voluntarily dismissed, then refiled in 2017; earlier summary judgment for defendants was reversed on appeal due to missing deposition in the record, and the case proceeded to jury trial on remand.
- At trial Matus asserted negligence and negligence per se (building‑code violations via a county resolution); the jury was instructed on negligence, negligence per se, and the open‑and‑obvious doctrine.
- The jury found in favor of the defendants, allocating 100% fault to Matus; post‑trial motions (JNOV / new trial) were denied and Matus appealed, raising three assignments of error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Exclusion of expert testimony on proximate cause | Matus: court erred to exclude expert testimony tying building‑code violations to proximate cause. | Defs: testimony properly excluded; proximate cause irrelevant if no negligence. | Affirmed — even if exclusion was error, it was harmless because jury found defendants not negligent, so proximate cause testimony could not change outcome. |
| 2) Jury instruction quoting Raflo re: traversing a condition on entry vs exit (open‑and‑obvious) | Matus: instruction misstated law, effectively barred recovery and improperly applied open‑and‑obvious doctrine to negligence per se. | Defs: Raflo instruction appropriate; Matus invited or forfeited objection to the instruction; instruction read in context did not require a defense verdict. | Affirmed — although wording was imperfect, no reversible error or prejudice shown; Matus forfeited/failed to request clarifying language; instructions taken as a whole were adequate. |
| 3) Denial of JNOV and new trial | Matus: erroneous instruction and other issues warranted JNOV or new trial on negligence per se, proximate cause and damages. | Defs: trial rulings correct; instruction error (if any) was not prejudicial. | Affirmed — Matus failed to show the instruction error required JNOV/new trial and did not develop requisite arguments; abuse of discretion/de novo standards not met. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Cromer v. Children’s Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Akron, 142 Ohio St.3d 257 (Ohio 2015) (standards for reviewing jury instructions and prejudice)
- Raflo v. Losantiville Country Club, 34 Ohio St.2d 1 (Ohio 1973) (step‑traversal rule applied in slip‑and‑fall cases)
- Lang v. Holly Hill Motel, Inc., 122 Ohio St.3d 120 (Ohio 2009) (open‑and‑obvious doctrine does not override statutory duties)
- Frano v. Red Robin Internatl., Inc., 181 Ohio App.3d 13 (Ohio Ct. App.) (discussion of Raflo in modern premises‑liability context)