Mulcahy v. Best Buy Stores, LP
2014 Ohio 1163
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Mulcahy injured when tripping on the bottom shelf of a standing fixture in the Best Buy Delaware County checkout area on Aug 1, 2010.
- He carried a 30x14 inch vacuum box, about 10–12 pounds, in front of him without a cart.
- The bottom shelf was 1–2 feet from the floor and the aisle floor was dark with a light central strip; the fixture was light colored.
- Photographs from Best Buy’s security camera depicted the shelf and Mulcahy after the fall.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Best Buy on Jun 6, 2013; Mulcahy appeals challenging the open-and-obvious duty and attendant-circumstances analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the bottom shelf an open-and-obvious danger for Mulcahy? | Mulcahy contends the hazard was not open and obvious given the shelf’s placement. | Best Buy argues the shelf was open and obvious; Mulcahy failed to show attendant circumstances. | Reasonable minds could differ; bottom shelf may be open and obvious. |
| Did attendant circumstances create a triable issue of fact? | Mulcahy argues attendant circumstances existed (low merchandise, atypical display) that distracted from the hazard. | Best Buy contends no attendant circumstances existed to negate open-and-obvious status. | Yes, attendant-circumstance analysis could create a fact issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (summary-judgment standard; burden shifts to nonmovant)
- Sidle v. Humphrey, 13 Ohio St.2d 45 (Ohio 1968) (open and obvious danger doctrine)
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (Ohio 2003) (open and obvious rule applied to premises liability)
- Jacobsen v. Coon Restoration & Sealants, Inc., 2011-Ohio-3563 (Ohio 5th Dist.) (attendant circumstances can defeat open-and-obvious)
- Kraft v. Dolgencorp, Inc., 2007-Ohio-4997 (Ohio 7th Dist.) (factors for open-and-obvious with attendant circumstances)