Roberts v. United Dairy Farmers, Inc., 2014 Ohio 3881

Roberts sued United Dairy Farmers, Inc. (UDF) in Butler County for premises liability after a fall at a UDF gas station/convenience store on Aug. 18, 2011.
She sustained fractures to her foot and elbow from a hole in the sidewalk outside the store’s double doors.
Roberts had previously visited this location on multiple occasions; she did not observe the hole before the fall.
UDF moved for summary judgment arguing the hole was an open and obvious condition; the trial court granted summary judgment for UDF.
The Court of Appeals reviewed de novo the open-and-obvious issue and whether attendant circumstances existed, ultimately affirming the trial court’s grant of summary judgment.
Judge Piper dissented, arguing the hole could be a non-obvious danger and that attendant circumstances may have existed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sidewalk hole was open and obvious	Roberts: hole concealed/blended with surrounding concrete; not readily observable	UDF: hole was open and obvious and observable	Yes; hole was open and obvious; no attendant circumstances found
Whether attendant circumstances existed to defeat open-and-obvious duty	Roberts: traffic in parking lot distracted her and created attendant circumstances	UDF: no attendant circumstances; typical parking-lot distractions are insufficient	No attendant circumstances as a matter of law

Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (2003-Ohio-2573) (open-and-obvious doctrine applies when hazard is in plain view)
Simmers v. Bentley Constr. Co., 64 Ohio St.3d 642 (1992-Ohio-) (observability as the test for open and obvious)
Forste v. Oakview Constr., Inc., 2009-Ohio-5516 (12th Dist. Warren No. CA2009-05-054) (duty to observe; open-and-obvious analysis informed by ordinary inspection)
McQueen v. Kings Island, 2012-Ohio-3539 (12th Dist. Warren No. CA2011-11-117) (employee non-observation does not defeat observability)