125 N.E.3d 312
Oh. Ct. App. 10th Dist. Frankl...2018Background
- In Oct 2015 Rawlings rented an apartment in a complex with an unassigned surface parking lot containing concrete wheel stops (parking barriers). Most wheel stops were positioned half in one space and half in the adjacent space.
- On March 1, 2016 Rawlings parked in a space where a wheel stop extended across the pedestrian aisle; while walking from the grass (it was dark, she did not use the walkway because of flooding) she tripped on the wheel stop and suffered serious injuries.
- Rawlings admitted she could have seen the wheel stop when pulling into the space and that she was not looking down when she approached the car (she was looking at the painted line). She also testified she can now see the wheel stop from her apartment.
- Management inspected the scene the next day, had long-known wheel stops existed and were positioned similarly, and had no prior complaints or reported injuries from wheel stops.
- Rawlings sued for common-law negligence (open-and-obvious hazard and attendant circumstances) and statutory negligence under Ohio’s Landlord–Tenant Act, R.C. 5321.04(A)(3) (duty to keep common areas safe).
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants on both claims; on appeal the court affirmed summary judgment on the common-law claim but reversed and remanded the statutory claim for genuine issue on constructive notice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the wheel stop was an open-and-obvious hazard such that defendant owed no duty | Rawlings: wheel stop was unusually positioned across the pedestrian path, it was dark, unlit, shadowed by cars, unpainted, and flooding forced her to use the grass — attendant circumstances negate open-and-obvious rule | Defendants: wheel stop was visible and observable; no significant attendant circumstance existed to distract Rawlings; therefore duty is negated by open-and-obvious doctrine | Court: wheel stop is open and obvious as a matter of law; attendant-circumstance exceptions (darkness, shadows, color, flooding, position) insufficient — summary judgment for defendants on common-law claim affirmed |
| Whether attendant circumstances created a jury question on open-and-obvious doctrine | Rawlings: darkness, lack of lighting, shadows, unpainted barrier, flooding and unusual placement distracted her and prevented discovery | Defendants: those factors increase care required or are ordinary conditions and do not divert attention; Rawlings admitted she was not looking down | Court: attendant-circumstance doctrine did not apply; circumstances increased, not decreased, expected care; no genuine issue for trial |
| Whether a violation of R.C. 5321.04(A)(3) (landlord duty re: common areas) was established as negligence per se | Rawlings: wheel stop placement violated parking/maintenance standards; expert opined placement was a tripping hazard and defendants should have known — landlord statute should be liberally construed for tenants | Defendants: no evidence they had actual or constructive notice the positioning created a dangerous condition; prior knowledge of wheel stops alone insufficient | Court: plaintiff presented expert affidavit that the placement violated standards and that defendant should reasonably have known; a genuine issue of material fact exists as to constructive notice — summary judgment on statutory claim reversed and remanded |
| Notice requirement for statutory claim: must landlord know the danger or merely the condition? | Rawlings: notice of the condition (wheel stops positioned across path) suffices; need not show landlord knew it was dangerous | Defendants: plaintiff must show landlord knew or should have known the danger posed | Court: adopts the view that landlord must have actual or constructive notice of the condition that causes the statutory violation; on facts here a reasonable jury could find constructive notice — issue for trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (Ohio 2003) (reaffirming open-and-obvious doctrine as barring duty to warn in common-law premises-liability)
- Simmers v. Bentley Constr. Co., 64 Ohio St.3d 642 (Ohio 1992) (open-and-obvious hazard serves as its own warning)
- Sidle v. Humphrey, 13 Ohio St.2d 45 (Ohio 1968) (foundation of open-and-obvious rule in premises liability)
- Mann v. Northgate Investors, L.L.C., 138 Ohio St.3d 175 (Ohio 2014) (violation of R.C. 5321.04(A)(3) is negligence per se and can obviate open-and-obvious defense)
- Sikora v. Wenzel, 88 Ohio St.3d 493 (Ohio 2000) (statutory landlord liability requires landlord had actual or constructive notice of condition causing violation)
- Robinson v. Bates, 112 Ohio St.3d 17 (Ohio 2006) (statutory violation does not automatically impose liability; proximate cause and notice remain necessary)
- Jeswald v. Hutt, 15 Ohio St.2d 224 (Ohio 1968) (darkness generally increases the standard of care and is not ordinarily an attendant circumstance)