Reeves v. St. Leonard
2017 Ohio 7433
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Clifford Reeves slipped and fell on hardwood flooring in the lobby of The Franciscan Center at St. Leonard on April 9, 2015, sustaining serious injuries; he was a business invitee attending a yoga class.
- An employee, Brandy Gillispie, had been mopping the lobby floor shortly before the fall; she and other witnesses testified that three “wet floor” signs had been placed and one was near where Reeves fell.
- Reeves testified he saw Gillispie mopping but did not see any wet-floor signs and claimed the floor’s wetness was not apparent where he slipped.
- The St. Leonard defendants moved for summary judgment, relying on depositions and affidavits establishing that wet-floor signs were placed close to Reeves’s fall and that standard mopping procedures were followed.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding the hazard was not open-and-obvious but that defendants adequately warned invitees via proximate wet-floor signs; Reeves appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the wet floor was an open-and-obvious hazard | Reeves: floor’s wetness at the exact spot was not readily apparent; he did not observe wetness | St. Leonard: Reeves saw mopping and wetness was discoverable; hazard should be obvious | Court: Hazard was not open and obvious (no evidence floor wetness was readily observable) |
| Whether attendant circumstances negated open-and-obvious doctrine | Reeves: attendant circumstances (distraction) prevented him from seeing signs/floor condition | St. Leonard: no unusual attendant circumstances shown | Court: Attendant-circumstance doctrine inapplicable because hazard not open and obvious; Reeves produced no evidence of special distraction |
| Whether defendants satisfied duty to warn invitees of wet floor | Reeves: no wet-floor sign near where he fell; defendants failed to warn | St. Leonard: employees placed multiple wet-floor signs in close proximity to fall area | Court: Credible witness testimony established proximate wet-floor signs; Reeves’s testimony/affidavit insufficient to create genuine factual dispute; defendants met duty to warn |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate | Reeves: factual disputes exist about sign placement and visibility | St. Leonard: no genuine dispute; entitled to judgment as matter of law | Court: Affirmed summary judgment for defendants; no genuine issue of material fact on warning adequacy |
Key Cases Cited
- Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, 82 Ohio St.3d 367 (summary judgment standard for negligence actions)
- Mitseff v. Wheeler, 38 Ohio St.3d 112 (movant’s initial burden on summary judgment)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (nonmoving party’s burden to produce specific facts to show a genuine issue)
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (open-and-obvious doctrine relieves landowner of duty)
- Gladon v. Greater Cleveland Reg. Transit Auth., 75 Ohio St.3d 312 (status of entrant defines duty owed)
- LaCourse v. Fleitz, 28 Ohio St.3d 209 (owner’s superior knowledge requirement for duty to warn)