Schnell v. Target Corp.
2017 Ohio 993
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On January 7, 2013, Lee Schnell slipped on ice in the parking lot of a Target store in Sandusky, Ohio; he and his wife sued Target, the shopping-center owner, and a contractor for negligence and failure to warn.
- Plaintiffs alleged the ice was an "unnatural accumulation" created by defendants' snow-removal activity and sought damages for Lee's injuries.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing plaintiffs could not show the ice was caused by anything other than natural freezing and thawing.
- Plaintiffs opposed, pointing to deposition testimony and photographs they said showed plowing/treatment and runoff from piled snow that refroze.
- The trial court found the ice resulted from natural thaw-and-refreeze of runoff from a snow bank created when the lot was plowed, and granted summary judgment for defendants.
- Plaintiffs appealed; the court of appeals affirmed, applying Ohio’s "no-duty winter rule" and its exception for "unnatural accumulation."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants had a duty to remove or warn about the ice (i.e., whether the ice was an "unnatural accumulation") | The icy patch resulted from defendants' snow-removal (piled snow/runoff that refroze), so it was an unnatural accumulation creating liability | The ice was the product of ordinary thaw-and-refreeze/runoff from piled snow and thus a natural accumulation; no duty to remove or warn | Court held the ice was naturally occurring (runoff/refreeze from a snow pile is natural); defendants owed no duty and summary judgment was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Lorain Natl. Bank v. Saratoga Apts., 61 Ohio App.3d 127 (1989) (standard of appellate de novo review on summary judgment)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (1996) (summary judgment standard and appellate review)
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64 (1978) (three-part summary-judgment test under Civ.R. 56)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (moving party's burden and burden-shifting framework on summary judgment)
- Menifee v. Ohio Welding Products, Inc., 15 Ohio St.3d 75 (1984) (elements of negligence claim)
- Gladon v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Auth., 75 Ohio St.3d 312 (1996) (landowner duties depend on entrant's status)
- Brinkman v. Ross, 68 Ohio St.3d 82 (1993) ("no-duty winter rule"—no duty to remove natural ice/snow)
- Jeswald v. Hutt, 15 Ohio St.2d 224 (1968) (no duty to remove natural accumulations of snow/ice)
- Lopatkovich v. Tiffin, 28 Ohio St.3d 204 (1986) (exception for "unnatural accumulation" caused or permitted by landowner)
- Porter v. Miller, 13 Ohio App.3d 93 (1984) (runoff from piled snow that refreezes is treated as a natural accumulation)