Meloy v. Circle K Store, 2013 Ohio 2837

Meloy, an invitee, slipped near a pallet of Morton salt at Circle K Store in Brimfield, Ohio after choosing to move closer to the display to allow others to pass in a narrow walkway.
The pallet display included two adjacent pallets with protruding price signs that could be bent and slid under the pallets, creating protrusions into the walking path.
Meloy testified she did not notice the signs prior to the fall and felt a snag on her pant leg as she passed the display.
She returned to her feet with assistance, filed an incident report, and later sustained a fractured right shoulder and knee bruises.
The trial court granted summary judgment for Circle K on the open-and-obvious defense, and Meloy appealed seeking reversal and remand.
The appellate court reviews the trial court’s summary judgment de novo and must not weigh conflicting evidence; open-and-obvious issues may be fact-intensive depending on attendant circumstances.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the danger was open and obvious as a matter of law	Meloy contends attendant circumstances render the danger not open and obvious	Circle K argues the protruding signs were open and obvious and duty was limited	Not open and obvious as a matter of law; genuine issue of material fact exists
Whether attendant circumstances create a jury question on duty	Attendant circumstances (narrow sidewalk, distractions, sign placement) foreclose open-and-obvious defense	Distractions do not negate obviousness; danger could be observed	Yes, attendant circumstances create a jury question on whether duty exists
Whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment on the open-and-obvious defense	Evidence shows material facts in dispute about visibility and perceptions	Evidence shows observable hazard; court should grant summary judgment	Error; trial court erred in concluding open-and-obvious as a matter of law
Whether the sidewalk/egress configuration affected the duty analysis	Narrow passage and pedestrian flow contributed to the risk	Disclaimer of duty when hazard is obvious; configuration irrelevant	Material facts remain; remand warranted

Hudspath v. The Cafaro Company, 11th Dist. No. 2004-A-0073, 2005-Ohio-6911 (11th Dist. (Ohio) 2005) (premise liability elements and open-and-obvious analysis guidance)
Goode v. Mt. Gillion Baptist Church, 2006-Ohio-6936 (8th Dist. 2006) (open-and-obvious determination is objective, not solely about visibility)
Stanfield v. Amvets Post No. 88, 2007-Ohio-1896 (2d Dist. 2007) (attendant circumstances affect open-and-obvious analysis)