Norris v. Riesbeck Food Markets, Inc., 2018 Ohio 54

Plaintiff James Norris slipped and fell on a shiny/clear wet area in the rear aisle of a Riesbeck grocery store after turning from a center aisle on October 20, 2014.
Norris testified he was negotiating around another shopper, did not see cones or warnings while approaching, and only realized the floor was wet after he was already on it and slipping.
Riesbeck's manager averred that an employee had damp-mopped the rear aisle before Norris arrived and that orange safety cones had been placed near the mopped area per store policy.
At deposition and in an affidavit Norris maintained he slipped immediately upon turning the corner and did not see cones until after he was on the wet area; in a recorded interview he also stated his feet went out before he realized anything (and at one point said he saw cones).
Trial court granted summary judgment for Riesbeck, finding the hazard was open and obvious and that cones constituted adequate warning; Norris appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the wet floor was an "open and obvious" danger	Norris: hazard was around a corner; he had no opportunity to perceive it before stepping on it	Riesbeck: condition was open and obvious; Norris admitted observing the hazard before fall	Reversed: genuine factual dispute whether hazard was open and obvious (cannot decide on summary judgment)
Whether store warnings (cones) were adequate	Norris: cones/warnings were not visible to him before he entered the wet area, so notice was inadequate	Riesbeck: cones were placed around the mopped area and provided adequate warning	Reversed: genuine factual dispute whether cones were visible/adequate before Norris stepped onto the wet floor

Comer v. Risko, 106 Ohio St.3d 185 (de novo review of summary judgment) (standard of appellate review)
Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (burden-shifting framework for summary judgment)
Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (2003) (landowner owes no duty to warn of open and obvious dangers)
Simmers v. Bentley Constr. Co., 64 Ohio St.2d 642 (1979) (expectation that entrants will discover open and obvious dangers)
Welco Industries, Inc. v. Applied Cos., 67 Ohio St.3d 344 (1993) (summary judgment should be awarded cautiously; construe doubts for nonmoving party)
Anderson v. St. Francis–St. George Hosp., Inc., 77 Ohio St.3d 82 (1996) (elements of negligence)
Light v. Ohio University, 28 Ohio St.3d 66 (1986) (definition and duties toward business invitees)