2020 Ohio 3431
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- On July 10, 2016, Robert Scott fell into a roughly 2-foot diameter, 5–6 inch deep pothole at a Harrisburg Petroleum (Mobile) gas station while walking from the passenger side of his car to the pump and was injured.
- Scott regularly frequented the station (about twice per month) and had previously observed potholes on the lot, though not this specific hole.
- Scott testified the pothole was visible from ~20 feet under the same lighting conditions, admitted he was not looking at the ground when he stepped into it, and conceded he would have seen it if he had looked.
- Harrisburg Petroleum’s owner testified the excavation was created by a contractor who had dug to repair pump lines after an attempted robbery.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant, applying the open-and-obvious doctrine and finding no attendant circumstances that would defeat that doctrine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the pothole was an open-and-obvious hazard relieving the owner of duty | Scott: attendant circumstances made the hazard not open-and-obvious (vehicle obscured view; he lacked exact knowledge of location; distracted by traffic and pumping; color/position made it hard to see) | Harrisburg: pothole was observable and Scott could have seen it if he looked; arguments do not qualify as attendant circumstances | Court: Hazard was open-and-obvious; summary judgment for defendant affirmed |
| Whether attendant circumstances (distractions/concealment) remove the open-and-obvious bar | Scott: vehicle, traffic, pumping, lighting and color distracted or concealed the hazard | Harrisburg: those factors are expected at a gas station or are qualities of the hazard itself and were not created by owner | Court: None of Scott’s claimed circumstances were sufficiently abnormal or beyond his control to be attendant circumstances |
| Whether darkness or poor lighting can be an attendant circumstance | Scott: poor visibility contributed to the fall | Harrisburg: lighting did not create an abnormal distraction; plaintiff admitted he wasn’t looking down | Court: Darkness typically increases a person’s required care and is not an attendant circumstance here; plaintiff’s admission fatal to claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Byrd v. Smith, 110 Ohio St.3d 24 (2006) (summary-judgment standard; construing evidence in favor of nonmoving party)
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (2003) (Ohio follows open-and-obvious doctrine in premises liability)
- Sidle v. Humphrey, 13 Ohio St.2d 45 (1968) (foundational Ohio premises-liability duty principles)
- Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy, Inc., 18 Ohio St.3d 203 (1985) (owner owes invitees ordinary care)
- Simmers v. Bentley Constr. Co., 64 Ohio St.3d 642 (1992) (open-and-obvious hazard operates as its own warning)
- Jeswald v. Hutt, 15 Ohio St.2d 224 (1968) (darkness generally increases caution required)