2018 Ohio 182
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- On Oct. 17, 2014, McCoy (invitee) fell when her left toe allegedly caught at the top of a wooden handicap ramp covered by a black rubber mat leading to a tiled foyer; she sustained serious injuries and sued Wasabi House for negligence.
- Photographs taken shortly after the incident show a slight lip/hump at the ramp-to-tile transition under the rubber mat.
- Plaintiff’s expert measured the vertical difference (with mat removed) as ranging from 7/8" to 1 1/4" and opined the offset was a tripping hazard; with the mat in place the offset was about one inch.
- McCoy testified she saw the ramp, the black mat/runner, could look down and see where she was stepping, and negotiated the transition with her right foot immediately before her left toe caught.
- Wasabi moved for summary judgment arguing (1) the hazard was open and obvious and (2) the two-inch (trivial defect) rule bars recovery; the trial court granted summary judgment.
- The Fifth District affirmed: it held the defect was open and obvious, no attendant circumstances existed to overcome that doctrine, and the height difference was less than two inches so the trivial-defect rule applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ramp defect was "open and obvious" | McCoy: the hump was hidden by a flexible mat that depressed under pressure, creating a non-observable trip point — jury question | Wasabi: lip/hump was visible in photos and McCoy admitted she saw the ramp and mat and could observe where she stepped | Court: open-and-obvious as a matter of law (no attendant circumstances); summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether the two-inch (trivial defect) rule bars recovery | McCoy: the trip point was not observable under the mat and the rule shouldn’t apply where the hazard is concealed | Wasabi: measurements (and photos) show the offset < 2 inches; no attendant circumstances to elevate the defect | Court: two-inch rule applies; defect trivial as matter of law; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Sidle v. Humphrey, 13 Ohio St.2d 45 (1968) (landowner owes no duty for dangers that are known or so obvious invitees reasonably should discover)
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (2003) (open-and-obvious dangers generally bar the duty to warn and liability)
- Simmers v. Bentley Constr. Co., 64 Ohio St.3d 642 (1992) (same principle regarding owner’s duty and patent dangers)
- Kimball v. Cincinnati, 160 Ohio St. 370 (1953) (height variation under two inches is a slight defect as a matter of law)
- Cash v. Cincinnati, 66 Ohio St.2d 319 (1981) (clarifies two-inch rule and requires consideration of attendant circumstances to overcome it)