Person-Thomas v. Quilliams-Noble Apartments, L.L.C.
45 N.E.3d 654
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- On Nov. 21, 2013, Pasha Person-Thomas knocked on an exterior glass door at Quilliams-Noble Apartments to surprise her then-boyfriend; on the third knock the glass shattered, injuring her wrist and arm.
- Appellant sued the apartment owner/managers (Quilliams-Noble Apartments, L.L.C. and KRI Properties) asserting common-law negligence and violation of the Ohio Landlord-Tenant Act for having non-safety glazing in the door.
- Appellees had purchased and begun managing the property on July 8, 2013 (four months before the incident) and presented evidence of no prior complaints, repairs, or incidents involving exterior door glass.
- A city point-of-sale inspection conducted during purchase cited many building-code violations but did not identify any hazard with the exterior door glass.
- Appellant relied on an expert report concluding the door used ordinary plate glass (not safety glazing required by the Ohio Building Code) and argued this established negligent per se and notice; appellees moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for appellees; the appellate court affirmed, concluding appellant failed to show actual or constructive notice of a hazardous condition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Degree of duty owed (landlord to guest) | Person‑Thomas: treated as invitee; landlord owed ordinary duty to keep premises safe. | Appellees: guest was at best a licensee; duty limited. | Court: Shump controls — landlord owes same duties to persons lawfully on leased premises as to tenant; common-law invitee/licensee labels do not control landlord duty. |
| Actual notice of defect | Person‑Thomas: appellees were responsible and thus had actual knowledge the glass was unsafe. | Appellees: no prior complaints, repairs, incidents; purchased property 4 months earlier. | Held: No evidence of actual notice; plaintiff produced no proof appellees knew of defect. |
| Constructive notice (should have discovered defect) | Person‑Thomas: expert opined panes were non‑safety glass for years; appellees should have known or inspected. | Appellees: point‑of‑sale city inspection found no glass hazard; no evidence defect was observable. | Held: Expert report insufficient — misstates appellees’ time on property and points to no observable defect that reasonable inspection would reveal; no constructive notice. |
| Violation of Landlord‑Tenant Act (R.C. 5321.04) / negligence per se | Person‑Thomas: presence of ordinary plate glass violated building code and R.C. 5321.04, so landlord negligent per se. | Appellees: excused if they neither knew nor should have known of the factual circumstances causing the violation. | Held: Even assuming violation, appellant failed to show appellees knew or should have known; statutory‑duty claim fails. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (establishes de novo review for summary judgment)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (allocates burdens in summary‑judgment motions)
- Shump v. First Continental‑Robinwood Assoc., 71 Ohio St.3d 414 (landlord owes same duties to persons lawfully on leased premises as to tenant)
- Sikora v. Wenzel, 88 Ohio St.3d 493 (landlord not liable absent actual or constructive knowledge)
- Robinson v. Bates, 112 Ohio St.3d 17 (landlord‑tenant statute violation is negligence per se but landlord excused if unaware and should not have known)
- Mussivand v. David, 45 Ohio St.3d 314 (duty determination is a question of law)
- Heckert v. Patrick, 15 Ohio St.3d 402 (notice is prerequisite where negligence revolves around defect existence)
- Wing v. Anchor Media, Ltd., 59 Ohio St.3d 108 (summary‑judgment burden shifting principles)