2022 Ohio 3164
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- On January 14, 2019, plaintiff Allen Roberts (a business invitee) slipped on ice a few feet from the entrance ramp of his employer’s leased facility and sustained serious leg injuries requiring surgery.
- Kauffman 4 Dayton, Ltd. owned the building/parking lot; Central Miami Property Maintenance was the independent contractor that plowed the lot after an 8-inch snowfall two days earlier.
- Roberts sued Kauffman and Central Miami claiming negligent creation of an "unnatural" ice accumulation (allegedly from plowed snow melting and refreezing) and failure to warn.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the ice was a natural accumulation and, in any event, open and obvious; Central Miami’s late reply to Roberts’ response was also at issue.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants on the ground of the no-duty winter rule and the open-and-obvious doctrine; Roberts appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Late filing of defendant’s reply to MSJ | Trial court abused discretion by permitting a late reply in violation of pretrial order | No prejudice shown; plaintiff’s counsel did not timely object | Waived by failure to object; no plain error; assignment overruled |
| Whether ice was an "unnatural accumulation" (no-duty winter rule exception for active negligence) | Plowing created snow piles on a slope; thaw/refreeze produced an unnatural dangerous ice patch | Snow removal and natural runoff/refreeze are expected; defendants plowed in accepted manner; plaintiff’s theory speculative | Plaintiff produced no evidence of unnatural accumulation or causation; summary judgment affirmed |
| Open-and-obvious hazard / attendant circumstances (black ice, lighting, truck shadows) | Ice was black/hidden and lighting/shadows prevented discovery, so hazard not open and obvious | Invitee regularly arrived pre-dawn and knew of snow/low light; darkness/ice are open and obvious risks | Hazard was open and obvious; attendant-circumstances claim rejected; summary judgment affirmed |
| Nondelegable duty doctrine (raised on appeal) | Owner retained nondelegable duty despite use of contractor | Issue not raised below and no authority showing doctrine applies here | Argument forfeited on appeal; no basis in record or law shown; assignment overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc., 82 Ohio St.3d 367 (Ohio 1998) (summary-judgment standard)
- Sidle v. Humphrey, 13 Ohio St.2d 45 (Ohio 1968) (occupier owes no duty for natural accumulations of ice and snow)
- Brinkman v. Ross, 68 Ohio St.3d 82 (Ohio 1993) (no duty to remove natural snow/ice or warn invitees)
- Lopatkovich v. Tiffin, 28 Ohio St.3d 204 (Ohio 1986) (exception for active negligence producing unnatural accumulation)
- Debie v. Cochran Pharmacy-Berwick, Inc., 11 Ohio St.2d 38 (Ohio 1967) (superior-knowledge exception to winter rule)
- Mikula v. Tailors, 24 Ohio St.2d 48 (Ohio 1970) (snow filling/covering a known hole can be substantially more dangerous)
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (Ohio 2003) (open-and-obvious doctrine bars duty)
- Pusey v. Bator, 94 Ohio St.3d 275 (Ohio 2002) (nondelegable-duty categories and principles)
- Albain v. Flower Hosp., 50 Ohio St.3d 251 (Ohio 1990) (discussion of nondelegable duty doctrines)
- McDonald v. Koger, 150 Ohio App.3d 191 (2d Dist. 2002) (snow placed on elevated islands with natural runoff is not an unnatural accumulation)