Rice v. Kroger, 2020 Ohio 2654

Plaintiff Mia Rice tripped on an empty wooden pallet next to a waist‑high produce bin at a Kroger store on May 15, 2016 and was injured; she sued Kroger for negligence.
The pallet was described by Rice as unpainted, about 5–6 inches high, and similar in color to the beige/tan floor; she was 4'11", holding and glancing at a store sales flyer and walking with her boyfriend when she fell.
Rice testified the produce bin obstructed her view of the pallet until she turned to walk around the bin; an employee removed the pallet immediately after being told to do so.
Kroger’s manager testified no pallet was present when he inspected the area, that pallets are normally painted on the edges, and that store practice prohibited leaving empty pallets on the floor.
The trial court granted Kroger summary judgment, finding the pallet was an open and obvious danger and Kroger owed no duty; Rice appealed.
The Sixth District Court of Appeals reversed, holding reasonable minds could differ whether the pallet’s placement and attendant circumstances made the hazard open and obvious and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Kroger owed a duty or the pallet was an open and obvious danger	Rice: Pallet was obscured by produce bin and similar to floor color; attendant circumstances (changing direction, obstruction) mean hazard was not open and obvious	Kroger: A pallet in produce area is foreseeable and objectively observable; Rice was not exercising ordinary care while reading a flyer	Court: Reversed summary judgment — reasonable minds could differ whether the pallet was open and obvious; duty question is for the jury
Whether appellate court should consider breach of duty	Rice: N/A (primary claim is duty/obviousness)	Kroger: Even if not open and obvious, Rice cannot show breach	Court: Declined to address breach because it was not raised below and cannot be considered for first time on appeal

Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 671 N.E.2d 241 (summary judgment reviewed de novo)
Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64, 375 N.E.2d 46 (purpose and standard for summary judgment)
Lang v. Holly Hill Motel, Inc., 122 Ohio St.3d 120, 909 N.E.2d 120 (landowner owes no duty to protect invitee from open and obvious static dangers)
Robinson v. Bates, 112 Ohio St.3d 17, 857 N.E.2d 1195 (elements of negligence and duty discussion)
Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., 99 Ohio St.3d 79, 788 N.E.2d 1088 (open and obvious dangers and inquiry into reasonable attention)
Grossnickle v. Village of Germantown, 3 Ohio St.2d 96, 209 N.E.2d 442 (open and obvious standard not require constant downward gaze)