Parker v. Red Roof Inn
2017 Ohio 7595
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On July 13, 2012, Parker parked a pickup at the rear edge of a Red Roof Inn lot; beyond the parking bumper there was a short curb, a narrow paved strip, loose stones with vertical posts, then the top of a retaining wall leading to a steep embankment and a lower retail parking lot; no railing or fence was present.
- Parker returned to his truck, walked around its rear to access tools, and fell over the edge, rolling down the embankment and sustaining injury.
- Parker sued Red Roof Inn (and certain Kohl’s entities); Kohl’s entities were largely dismissed by stipulation, leaving Red Roof Inn as the defendant.
- Red Roof Inn moved for summary judgment arguing the embankment was an open and obvious danger, initially relying on Parker’s deposition but omitting photographs.
- This Court reversed the trial court for failure to meet the movant’s initial Dresher burden because photographs shown in deposition were not in the record; on remand Red Roof Inn refiled the deposition with the photographs and the trial court again granted summary judgment.
- On second appeal, the Ninth District reversed again, holding that genuine factual issues remain about whether a reasonable person in Parker’s position would have appreciated the several-foot drop beyond the retaining wall, so open-and-obvious was unresolved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether law of the case barred consideration of new evidence on remand | Parker: prior appellate ruling precluded new evidence and re-litigation | Red Roof: new photographic evidence was newly filed and proper for consideration on remand | Law of the case did not bar the trial court because the movant submitted additional evidence on remand |
| Whether the embankment was an open and obvious danger, relieving landowner of duty | Parker: genuine issue of material fact exists; photos do not show the steep drop from plaintiff’s vantage; attendant circumstances (foliage, viewpoint) matter | Red Roof: photos and deposition show curb, loose stones, retaining wall—condition was observable | The court held factual disputes remain whether a reasonable person in Parker’s position would have appreciated the drop; summary judgment on open-and-obvious improper |
| Whether movant met initial Dresher summary judgment burden | Parker: Red Roof originally failed by omitting photos; even with photos, factual dispute remains | Red Roof: re-filed deposition and exhibits satisfy Dresher | Court: initial omission justified reversal earlier; on remand the added photos still did not eliminate factual dispute so movant failed to show absence of any genuine issue |
| Whether building-code/regulatory violations negate open-and-obvious (raised by Parker) | Parker: uncontested violations establish negligence and may defeat open-and-obvious | Red Roof: open-and-obvious doctrine still applies regardless | Court: declined to decide because factual issue on open-and-obvious was dispositive; also noted Parker did not raise regulatory issue in opposition to re-filed motion below |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (standard of review for summary judgment) (Ohio 1996)
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (summary judgment standard and rule) (Ohio 1977)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (plaintiff and movant burdens on summary judgment) (Ohio 1996)
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (open-and-obvious doctrine bars duty) (Ohio 2003)
- Nolan v. Nolan, 11 Ohio St.3d 1 (law-of-the-case doctrine and its limits) (Ohio 1984)