Motes v. Cleveland Clinic Found.
2012 Ohio 928
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Motes slipped in the Clinic’s M-2 hallway after seeing water on a white linoleum floor and sustained a fractured hip.
- In 2010, Motes sued the Cleveland Clinic Foundation for negligent maintenance of the premises.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the Clinic.
- The issue is whether the Clinic owed a duty and breached it, resulting in injury.
- The trial court relied on no evidence of creation or notice of the hazard and on the open-and-obvious condition issue being non-dispositive here.
- Housekeeping testified spills are reported and promptly addressed; witnesses had no knowledge of prior notice; water was found after the fall.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty and breach of care by owner | Motes contends Clinic created or knew of hazard | Clinic did not create or have notice; not negligent | Summary judgment proper; no breach proven |
| Actual or constructive notice of the hazard | Clinic had constructive or actual notice | No evidence of notice before fall | No genuine issue on notice; Clinic not liable |
| Open and obvious condition as defense | Open and obvious condition does not bar claim | Open-and-obvious not dispositive given other facts | Not reached as summary judgment affirmed on absence of duty/breach |
| Sufficiency of summary-judgment evidence | Clinic failed to negate claims with affidavits or evidence | Record shows absence of hazard creation/notice | Summary judgment affirmed on adequacy of record |
| Proximate cause requirements | Factual issues on causation exist | No facts showing Clinic caused or knew of hazard | Not necessary to decide open-and-obvious issue; no genuine issue of material fact on causation |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison's Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1996) (de novo review; Civ.R. 56 standards for summary judgment)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (moving party bears initial burden to show absence of genuine issue)
- Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy, Inc., 18 Ohio St.3d 203 (Ohio 1985) (premises liability; invitee duty of care)
- Johnson v. Wagner Provision Co., 141 Ohio St. 584 (Ohio 1943) (constructive notice standard for hazardous conditions)
- Mootispaw v. Eckstein, 76 Ohio St.3d 383 (Ohio 1996) (summary-judgment standard; open-theory of disputed facts)
- Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy, Inc., 18 Ohio St.3d 203 (Ohio 1985) (premises liability; invitee duty)
- Hollins v. Shaffer, 182 Ohio App.3d 282 (Ohio 2009) (de novo review of summary judgment on appeal)
- Shetina v. Ohio Univ., 9 Ohio App.3d 240 (Ohio 1983) (inspections and latent defects; summary-judgment considerations)
- Lopez v. Cleveland Mun. School Dist., 8th Dist. No. 82438 (Ohio 2003) (evidence of prior leaks; lack of notice to create issue)