Miller v. Moyer, 2017 Ohio 7106

On Feb. 8, 2013 the Millers purchased DirecTV service; DirecTV’s agent Directsat sent employee/installer Jeff Moyer to install a satellite dish at the Millers’ home.
Moyer and Mr. Miller accessed a crawl space covered by a removable step; Moyer removed the step in Mr. Miller’s presence to reach a splitter and worked in the area for several hours.
Mr. Miller twice left and re-entered the house through the garage door adjacent to the exposed crawl space, each time noticing and intentionally avoiding the opening; later the same day he exited again and—allegedly by routine—stepped into the exposed crawl space and was injured.
The Millers sued Moyer, Directsat, and DirecTV for negligence (and DirecTV/Directsat for inadequate training); Blue Cross Blue Shield asserted a subrogation claim.
Defendants moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted it, concluding Mr. Miller was on notice of the hazard and his failure to avoid a known danger defeated his claim; the court also denied the insurer’s subrogation claim.
The Millers appealed, arguing the trial court improperly merged the open-and-obvious doctrine with contributory negligence and thus usurped the jury’s role in apportioning fault.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Moyer (an independent contractor) owed a duty to warn/protect Mr. Miller after removing the step and exposing the crawl space	Millers: Trial court improperly merged open-and-obvious doctrine with contributory negligence and should have let a jury apportion fault	Defendants: Mr. Miller knew of the exposed hazard and traversed it cautiously earlier; injury not foreseeable so no duty existed	Court: No duty—injury not foreseeable given Mr. Miller’s knowledge and prior deliberate avoidance, so summary judgment for defendants affirmed
Whether open-and-obvious danger doctrine shields an independent contractor who created the dangerous condition	Millers: Open-and-obvious is not a defense to an independent contractor who creates a hazard; jury should assess fault	Defendants: Even if doctrine applies, plaintiff’s conduct bars recovery because he knew and avoided the hazard earlier	Court: Independent contractors who create a danger are not automatically shielded, but here the dispositive question is duty/foreseeability—no duty existed because plaintiff knowingly and cautiously navigated the exposed crawl space

Simmers v. Bentley Constr. Co., 64 Ohio St.3d 642 (independent contractor who creates a dangerous condition may be liable)
Menifee v. Ohio Welding Prods., Inc., 15 Ohio St.3d 75 (elements of negligence: duty, breach, proximate cause)
Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (standard of de novo review for summary judgment)
Wallace v. Ohio Dept. of Corr., 96 Ohio St.3d 266 (definition of duty as relationship creating obligation to exercise due care)
Jeffers v. Olexo, 43 Ohio St.3d 140 (no duty means no negligence)
Feichtner v. Cleveland, 95 Ohio App.3d 388 (summary judgment properly granted when plaintiff cannot establish negligence elements)