Parker v. L.T.
2017 Ohio 7674
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On Oct. 21, 2012, 80‑year‑old Jewell Parker attended morning service at Cincinnati Primitive Baptist Church and, during the between‑services lunch break, walked through a full church parking lot toward a playground.
- A group of teenage boys, including 15‑year‑old W.T., regularly played football in the open area between the third and fourth rows of parked cars; the boys had been playing that day for 20–30 minutes.
- As Parker and her companion (Mobley) walked past the third row, they heard a loud rushing noise; W.T. ran several spaces to catch a pass, turned, back‑pedaled without seeing her, collided with Parker, and knocked her down, fracturing her hip.
- Parker sued the church, W.T., and W.T.’s father, L.T., alleging negligence and negligent supervision; she later withdrew the parental‑duty claim against L.T. and settled with the church.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to both W.T. and L.T., holding they owed Parker no duty; Parker appealed the grant as to W.T. and L.T.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant owed a duty of care to a nonparticipant injured by play in a crowded parking lot | Parker: running/playing football in a crowded parking lot created a foreseeable risk to pedestrians, so W.T. owed a duty to exercise reasonable care | W.T.: no duty because the football activity was open and obvious and plaintiff assumed the risk; court below found no duty | Court: duty exists — running/playing in crowded lot was foreseeable risk to pedestrians; summary judgment on duty to W.T. was erroneous |
| Whether primary assumption of the risk bars recovery by a nonparticipant | Parker: she was merely walking and could not reasonably have foreseen or accepted the risk of collisions from the game | W.T.: Parker knowingly entered area where boys were playing and assumed the risk | Court: assumption‑of‑the‑risk inapplicable to nonparticipant; summary judgment not supported on this basis |
| Whether the open‑and‑obvious doctrine eliminates duty here | Parker: she had no property interest and was not a participant/spectator; she could not be expected to assume the risk | W.T.: the game was open and obvious so no duty was owed | Court: open‑and‑obvious doctrine limited to premises‑owners/occupiers; W.T. had no property interest — doctrine does not bar duty determination here |
| Whether summary judgment for L.T. was improper after Parker withdrew parental‑duty claim | Parker: withdrew parental negligent‑supervision claim; still argued deacon/supervision liability | L.T.: summary judgment appropriate | Court: Parker did not adequately brief challenge to L.T.; appellate court declines to address and affirms summary judgment as to L.T. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Shaffer, 90 Ohio St.3d 388 (procedural standard for de novo review of summary judgment)
- Comer v. Risko, 106 Ohio St.3d 185 (summary judgment standard in Ohio)
- Strother v. Hutchinson, 67 Ohio St.2d 282 (elements of negligence: duty, breach, causation)
- Menifee v. Ohio Welding Prods., Inc., 15 Ohio St.3d 75 (duty determined by foreseeability of risk)
- Cromer v. Children’s Hosp. Med. Ctr. of Akron, 142 Ohio St.3d 257 (reasonable‑person standard and scope of duty analysis)
- Mussivand v. David, 45 Ohio St.3d 314 (existence of duty is a question of law)
- Gallagher v. Cleveland Browns Football Co., 74 Ohio St.3d 427 (primary assumption of the risk doctrine explained)
- Thompson v. McNeill, 53 Ohio St.3d 102 (nonparticipants cannot be treated as assuming risk of others’ athletic activity)
- Simmers v. Bentley Constr. Co., 64 Ohio St.3d 642 (limits on open‑and‑obvious doctrine tied to property interests)
- Gedeon v. East Ohio Gas Co., 128 Ohio St. 335 (duty where injured person comes within circle of foreseeable harm)
- Philadelphia Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Hirschfield Printing Co., 73 Ohio App. 27 (general principle that actors creating risks owe duty to public to exercise reasonable care)