2017 Ohio 7151
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- In 1998 McQuown bought a house in Coventry Township; a 7.5-foot drainage easement is recorded along the west side of his lot but the deed does not state the easement’s beneficiary. Two separate drainage pipes exist; one inlet on McQuown’s front yard connects to an underground drain leading to a retention pond.
- On April 9, 2013 McQuown fell while clearing debris and was impaled on a rusted metal rod located at or near the inlet to the underground drain. He admitted the rod had been on the property since 1998 and that he never notified the Township.
- McQuown sued Coventry Township for negligence; the Township raised political-subdivision immunity and the open-and-obvious (and known-peril) defenses and moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to the Township on immunity and, alternatively, the open-and-obvious doctrine, and denied McQuown’s partial summary-judgment motion as moot.
- The appellate majority reversed: it found genuine issues of material fact about (a) whether the drain/pipe is part of a Township-operated storm-water sewer system (a proprietary function), (b) whether the 7.5-foot easement benefits the Township, and (c) whether the rod lay on private property or the public right-of-way — precluding summary judgment on both immunity and open-and-obvious grounds.
- A concurring dissent would have affirmed: it emphasized McQuown’s admission that the rod was present since 1998 and applied the known-peril/open-and-obvious doctrines to bar recovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Township is immune under R.C. 2744 or liable under the proprietary-function exception (operation/maintenance of a sewer system) | McQuown: genuine issues exist whether the drain/pipe is part of a Township storm-water sewer system and whether the easement benefits the Township, so immunity is not established | Coventry: no record evidence it owns, operates, or maintains a storm-water sewer on McQuown’s lot; title search shows no easement to Township; no notice or involvement with the rod | Reversed trial court: genuine factual disputes exist about whether the pipe/easement are part of a Township-operated sewer system; summary judgment on immunity improper |
| Whether the open-and-obvious (or known-peril) doctrine bars McQuown’s negligence claim | McQuown: doctrine inapplicable because material facts remain about ownership/occupancy of the property where the rod sat and attendant circumstances — so duty question unresolved | Coventry: rod was open/obvious (and McQuown knew of it since 1998), so no duty and summary judgment appropriate | Reversed: because factual disputes about property ownership/occupancy and location of the rod affect duty and attendant circumstances, summary judgment on open-and-obvious grounds was premature |
| Whether the Township had notice or placed the rod | McQuown: alleges Township personnel had worked in the ditch, removed or covered the rod after injury, and Township’s drainage program suggests involvement | Coventry: affidavits from title examiner and road superintendent say no recorded easement in Township’s favor, Township did not install or place the rod, and Township lacked notice | Reversed: credibility and factual disputes remain (e.g., eyewitness affidavit, Township actions after the injury) — summary judgment inappropriate |
| Whether attendant circumstances preclude treating the rod as open-and-obvious | McQuown: leaves, location on the property line, and other conditions create triable issues whether a reasonable person would have discovered the hazard | Coventry: conditions did not negate obviousness; plaintiff admitted knowledge | Reversed: attendant circumstances and disputed location/ownership require factfinder resolution |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (summary-judgment standard; de novo review)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (movant and nonmovant burdens in summary judgment)
- Murphy v. Reynoldsburg, 65 Ohio St.3d 356 (view evidence most strongly for nonmovant)
- Hill v. Urbana, 79 Ohio St.3d 130 (proprietary-function exception to political-subdivision immunity)
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (open-and-obvious doctrine bars duty)
- Simmers v. Bentley Constr. Co., 64 Ohio St.3d 642 (rationale for open-and-obvious rule)
- Raflo v. Losantiville Country Club, 34 Ohio St.2d 1 (known-peril doctrine)