Meyer v. Dayton
2016 Ohio 8080
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Sandra Meyer fell in the long-term ("blue") parking lot at Dayton International Airport after her rolling suitcase abruptly stopped; she broke her left femur and was transported to the hospital.
- Meyer had parked in a row near marker F1 on arrival; when she returned three days later it was dark, some lot lights were out, and she was pushing a four-wheel suitcase while carrying other items.
- Photographs exist of two different spots: (1) photos taken ~one month later by airport personnel (Bales) showing a drop of two inches or less at a location north of where Meyer said she fell; and (2) nighttime photos taken the night of the accident showing extensive cracks at the lane where Meyer and first responders located her.
- Airport Operations personnel inspected the area after the fall, observed a roughly one-inch lip in the asphalt extending across several rows, and later caused repairs; testimony and photos indicate elevation differences under two inches.
- Meyer sued the City of Dayton and Airport Department for negligence; the trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, ruling no duty/causation and that political-subdivision immunity applied. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to invitee for parking-lot asphalt defect | Meyer argued Dayton had a duty to maintain safe premises and to fix lighting/defects that made the defect dangerous | Dayton argued the defect was insubstantial (<2") and no special duty to light or repair extraordinary hazards existed | Held: No duty for an insubstantial defect; Dayton also had no duty to provide/maintain lighting that would change the result |
| Whether asphalt elevation difference was "substantial" (two-inch rule) | Meyer argued attendant circumstances (darkness, unfamiliarity, lighting out, airport knowledge) made the defect substantial | Dayton argued photos and testimony show elevation difference under two inches, so defect is insubstantial as matter of law | Held: Elevation difference at photographed spots was under two inches; actual fall location evidence likewise showed <2"; attendant circumstances insufficient to rebut presumption of insubstantial defect |
| Causation — can Meyer identify the specific hazard that caused the fall? | Meyer said her suitcase wheels hit a rut/divot causing sudden stop and her forward fall; emergency reports varied and Meyer could not identify a specific rut | Dayton argued Meyer could not identify the particular defect that caused the fall, so negligence cannot be shown | Held: Plaintiff could not identify a specific defect as the cause; mere occurrence of a fall is insufficient; summary judgment proper on proximate cause |
| Immunity under R.C. 2744 (political-subdivision immunity) | Meyer contended exceptions applied (e.g., negligent performance of proprietary function) | Dayton argued parking-lot operation is a proprietary function and no statutory exception applied because no negligence shown | Held: Parking-lot operation is a proprietary function; because Meyer failed to show negligence and no applicable statutory exception applied, Dayton was immune |
Key Cases Cited
- Cash v. Cincinnati, 66 Ohio St.2d 319 (Ohio 1981) (establishes two-inch presumption that elevation differences of two inches or less are insubstantial unless attendant circumstances rebut)
- Light v. Ohio University, 28 Ohio St.3d 66 (Ohio 1986) (classification of business invitee and duty owed)
- Menifee v. Ohio Welding Prod., Inc., 15 Ohio St.3d 75 (Ohio 1984) (elements of negligence: duty, breach, proximate cause, injury)
- Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy, Inc., 18 Ohio St.3d 203 (Ohio 1985) (no presumption of negligence from mere occurrence of accident)
- Lang v. Holly Hill Motel, Inc., 122 Ohio St.3d 120 (Ohio 2009) (open-and-obvious doctrine negates duty in premises-liability cases)
- Jeswald v. Hutt, 15 Ohio St.2d 224 (Ohio 1968) (property owner generally has no duty to light a parking lot)