2018 Ohio 3896
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Charles Patterson, a temporary worker assigned to Lykins Oil, fell from an A-frame step ladder while delivering fuel to an above-ground seven-foot-high split oil tank on Adleta, Inc.’s property and suffered a severe leg injury.
- Lykins employees routinely delivered fuel to this tank twice daily for years; a ladder was often left near the tank and used by Lykins employees, though Lykins sometimes supplied ladders on its trucks.
- Patterson had made two prior deliveries to the tank, was experienced with A-frame ladders, and testified he positioned the ladder himself on gravel and climbed without direction from Adleta employees.
- Lykins trainer Gross inspected and repositioned the ladder after the fall, believed Adleta provided the ladder but said no permission from Adleta was required and Lykins employees decided how to deliver fuel.
- Adleta’s assistant operations manager testified that an A-frame is intended to be used opened with all four feet on the ground and not in the closed/leaning position used to access the tank.
- Patterson and his wife sued Adleta for negligence and loss of consortium; Adleta moved for summary judgment arguing the activity was inherently dangerous and thus Adleta owed no duty to the business invitee; the trial court granted summary judgment for Adleta and the Pattersons appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether climbing the ladder to access the tank was an inherently dangerous activity that eliminates owner duty | Patterson: climbing the ladder in the closed/leaning position was dangerous because Adleta provided an inappropriate ladder (A-frame) making the work unusually risky | Adleta: climbing a ladder is inherently dangerous, so owner owes no duty to a business invitee for such work | Held: Climbing a ladder is inherently dangerous; Patterson knew how ladder should be used and the danger of using it closed—no duty shown |
| Whether a latent defect in the ladder created a special risk that would impose a duty on Adleta | Patterson: Adleta provided an inappropriate ladder, creating a hazard beyond ordinary ladder risks | Adleta: there was no hidden defect; misuse of ladder was open and obvious | Held: No latent defect; using the ladder closed was open and obvious to experienced user—no genuine fact issue |
| Whether Adleta’s provision of the ladder or other conduct constituted "active participation" in the work, creating owner liability | Patterson: by providing the ladder, Adleta gave permission/control over critical aspects and thus actively participated | Adleta: it did not direct, control, or instruct use of the ladder; Lykins employees decided how to perform deliveries | Held: No active participation—Adleta did not direct or control the critical acts; exception to nonliability does not apply |
| Whether summary judgment was proper | Patterson: disputed factual issues (type/provision/use of ladder) preclude summary judgment | Adleta: undisputed facts show no duty or active participation as a matter of law | Held: Summary judgment affirmed for Adleta; no genuine issue of material fact on duty or active-participation exception |
Key Cases Cited
- Wellman v. East Ohio Gas Co., 160 Ohio St. 103 (premises owner owes no duty for inherently dangerous work by invitee)
- Hirschbach v. Cincinnati Gas & Elec. Co., 6 Ohio St.3d 206 (active-participation exception to owner nonliability defined)
- Menifee v. Ohio Welding Prods., Inc., 15 Ohio St.3d 75 (elements of negligence claim)
- Lang v. Holly Hill Motel, Inc., 122 Ohio St.3d 120 (premises-liability duty depends on visitor status)