Rowe v. Pseekos
2014 Ohio 2024
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Plaintiff Carrie L. Rowe (a housecleaner) was electrocuted by a damaged electrical cord on a clock while dusting at defendants James and Stella Pseekos' home. The injury occurred November 11, 2008.
- Rowe sued the Pseekoses for negligence (premises liability), alleging they failed to inspect, maintain, and warn about the latent hazard.
- The Pseekoses denied prior knowledge of the exposed wire; they had replaced the cord in 1993 and had not experienced problems since.
- James Pseekos adjusted the clock for daylight savings about one week before the incident and testified he looked at the cord, but his inspection was cursory and he did not observe missing insulation.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the Pseekoses; Rowe appealed, arguing the owners had a duty to inspect/maintain and to warn invitees of latent hazards.
- The appellate court reviewed summary judgment de novo and assumed (without deciding) that Rowe was an invitee for purposes of duty analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants breached duty to conduct reasonable inspections of premises/appliances | Rowe: Pseekoses failed to reasonably inspect/maintain the clock and thus should be charged with constructive knowledge of the exposed wire | Pseekos: James inspected the clock (while changing time) and had no notice or reason to suspect a defect; no further inspection was required | Held: Inspection was reasonable under the circumstances; no breach of inspection duty |
| Whether defendants had constructive knowledge of the latent defect | Rowe: A reasonable inspection would have revealed the damaged cord, so constructive notice should be imputed | Pseekos: No objective signs or prior problems existed to put them on notice; therefore no constructive knowledge | Held: No constructive knowledge; reasonable minds could only find no constructive notice |
| Whether defendants had a duty to warn or make premises safe regarding the clock | Rowe: Because of latent danger, defendants owed a duty to warn invitees like Rowe | Pseekos: Because they lacked actual or constructive knowledge, no duty to warn arose | Held: No duty to warn arose because no constructive or actual knowledge of the defect was shown |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate | Rowe: Factual disputes over notice/inspection precluded summary judgment | Pseekos: Evidence shows only a cursory but reasonable inspection and absence of notice, entitling them to judgment as a matter of law | Held: Summary judgment affirmed for defendants; reasonable minds could only conclude defendants did not breach duties |
Key Cases Cited
- Hudson v. Petrosurance, Inc., 127 Ohio St.3d 54 (2010) (summary judgment standard and de novo appellate review)
- Sinnott v. Aqua-Chem, Inc., 116 Ohio St.3d 158 (2007) (summary judgment principles)
- Lang v. Holly Hill Motel, Inc., 122 Ohio St.3d 120 (2009) (landowner not insurer of invitee safety)
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (2003) (landowner must exercise ordinary care and warn of latent dangers)
- Perry v. Eastgreen Realty Co., 53 Ohio St.2d 51 (1978) (duty to inspect the premises)
- Beck v. Camden Place at Tuttle Crossing, 10th Dist. No. 02AP-1370, 2004-Ohio-2989 (2004) (constructive knowledge may be imputed when reasonable inspection would have revealed defect)
- Aldamen v. Sunburst USA, Inc., 10th Dist. No. 08AP-235, 2008-Ohio-5071 (2008) (landowner must undertake reasonable—not exhaustive—inspections)