Price v. Dept. of Rehab & Corr.
2014 Ohio 3522
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Raymond Price, an ODRC inmate at Hocking Correctional Facility, tripped over a chair and fell while walking to the restroom on July 2, 2012.
- The chair had been repositioned earlier that day by an ODRC employee; Price had seen the chair and had passed it once earlier without incident.
- Price sued the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) for negligence, claiming the chair was negligently placed and asserting attendant circumstances made the hazard non-obvious.
- ODRC moved for summary judgment; the Court of Claims granted the motion, and Price appealed.
- The appellate court reviewed whether the open-and-obvious doctrine barred Price’s negligence claim and whether attendant circumstances (dim lighting from a power outage, crowding, chair configuration, and Price’s urgency due to incontinence) excused application of that doctrine.
- The court concluded the chair was an open-and-obvious hazard, attendant circumstances were not sufficiently abnormal or distracting, and ODRC owed no duty to warn; summary judgment for ODRC was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ODRC owed a duty given the chair was an open-and-obvious hazard | Price: attendant circumstances (dim lighting, crowding, obscured wheels, urgency from bladder condition) made the hazard not open-and-obvious | ODRC: chair was observable and appreciable; attendant circumstances were not abnormal or sufficient to negate open-and-obvious doctrine | Court: Hazard was open-and-obvious; attendant-circumstance exception did not apply; no duty to warn |
| Whether lighting rendered the hazard non-obvious | Price: power outage/dimness reduced visibility | ODRC: natural light was sufficient; dimmer light still places duty on pedestrian | Court: natural light adequate; darkness is warning; not an attendant circumstance |
| Whether crowding/narrow passage qualified as attendant circumstance | Price: foot traffic and narrow space distracted him and increased risk | ODRC: crowding and narrowness were ordinary and known; not abnormal | Court: regular crowding and confined space did not create an attendant circumstance |
| Whether Price’s medical urgency (incontinence) created an attendant circumstance | Price: urgency distracted him, preventing appreciation of hazard | ODRC: subjective internal condition does not negate open-and-obvious doctrine | Court: personal urgency is subjective and does not reduce ordinary person’s duty of care |
Key Cases Cited
- Jeswald v. Hutt, 15 Ohio St.2d 224 (1968) (darkness is a warning of danger and may not be disregarded)
- Murphy v. Reynoldsburg, 65 Ohio St.3d 356 (1992) (summary judgment standards and construing doubts for nonmoving party)
- Hannah v. Dayton Power & Light Co., 82 Ohio St.3d 482 (1998) (inferences must be construed in favor of the nonmoving party)
- Turner v. Turner, 67 Ohio St.3d 337 (1993) (same: construing evidentiary inferences for nonmoving party)
- Strother v. Hutchinson, 67 Ohio St.2d 282 (1981) (plaintiff must produce some evidence on every essential element to submit to a jury)
- Todd Dev. Co., Inc. v. Morgan, 116 Ohio St.3d 461 (2008) (standards for summary judgment under Civ.R. 56)
- Robinson v. Bates, 112 Ohio St.3d 17 (2006) (elements of negligence: duty, breach, proximate cause)