Parker v. L.T.
2017 Ohio 7674
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Jewell Parker, an 80-year-old church attendee, was struck and suffered a broken hip while walking through a crowded church parking lot during the break between services.
- A group of teenage boys, including defendant W.T. (age 15), were playing football in the parking lot between the third and fourth rows of cars; parking lot was full.
- Parker and her companion Mobley heard a sudden loud noise; W.T. ran to catch a pass, turned while backpedaling, and collided with Parker in the blink of an eye.
- Parker sued the church, W.T., and W.T.’s father L.T.; she later settled with the church and withdrew the parental-supervision claim against L.T.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to both W.T. and L.T., finding no duty owed to Parker; Parker appealed as to W.T. and L.T.
- The appellate court affirmed summary judgment as to L.T. (no challenge preserved) but reversed as to W.T., holding a duty of care was owed and summary judgment was inappropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether W.T. owed Parker a duty of care while playing football in the parking lot | Parker: playing/running in crowded parking lot created foreseeable risk to nonparticipants; W.T. owed reasonable-care duty | W.T.: no duty to Parker because risk was open and obvious or plaintiff assumed the risk; court below found no duty | Court: Duty existed — running/playing in crowded lot made injury to passersby foreseeable; reversed summary judgment for W.T. |
| Whether primary assumption of the risk bars Parker’s claim | Parker: not a participant/spectator and could not be expected to assume risk merely walking through lot | W.T.: Parker entered the “field of football” and assumed the risk | Court: Assumption-of-risk inapplicable — Parker neither participated nor reasonably accepted the risk; defense rejected |
| Whether open-and-obvious doctrine precludes duty | Parker: doctrine limited to property owners/possessors; not applicable to a defendant without possessory interest | W.T.: game was open and obvious; thus no duty | Court: Open-and-obvious doctrine limited to premises liability (property interest); cannot defeat duty here; defense rejected |
| Summary judgment appropriate on negligence claim | Parker: fact issues remain as to duty/breach/cause precluding summary judgment | W.T.: entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (no duty; affirmative defenses) | Court: Summary judgment improper as to W.T. because duty exists and factual issues remain; affirmed as to L.T. on procedural/waiver grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Shaffer, 90 Ohio St.3d 388 (summary-judgment standard)
- Comer v. Risko, 106 Ohio St.3d 185 (summary-judgment standard)
- Strother v. Hutchinson, 67 Ohio St.2d 282 (elements of negligence)
- Commerce & Industry Ins. Co. v. Toledo, 45 Ohio St.3d 96 (definition of duty)
- Cromer v. Children’s Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Akron, 142 Ohio St.3d 257 (foreseeability and scope of duty)
- Menifee v. Ohio Welding Prods., 15 Ohio St.3d 75 (foreseeability as duty test)
- Mussivand v. David, 45 Ohio St.3d 314 (existence of duty is question of law)
- Gedeon v. East Ohio Gas Co., 128 Ohio St. 335 (injured person within foreseeable circle)
- Gallagher v. Cleveland Browns Football Co., 74 Ohio St.3d 427 (primary assumption-of-risk doctrine)
- Thompson v. McNeill, 53 Ohio St.3d 102 (limits on assuming risk when not a participant)
- Simmers v. Bentley Constr. Co., 64 Ohio St.3d 642 (open-and-obvious doctrine limited to premises liability)