2022 Ohio 4226
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- On March 1, 2019, Trina Shaw fell at ~9:30 p.m. in the Washington Court House High School parking lot after stepping into a 2–4 inch depression/divot adjacent to a drainage grate.
- Shaw sued the Washington Court House City Schools Board of Education (BOE) for negligence, alleging the pavement deterioration created a hazardous condition.
- Depositions: Shaw testified she was following family, not looking down, but could see the hole after she fell (without a flashlight); her husband testified the hole was visible in the glow of parking-lot lighting.
- BOE moved for summary judgment asserting statutory immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744 (physical-defect exception inapplicable) and that the condition was open and obvious.
- Trial court granted summary judgment, finding the approximately four-inch hole was not a "physical defect" under R.C. 2744.02(B)(4) and therefore BOE was immune; it did not decide the open-and-obvious defense.
- Shaw appealed; the court of appeals affirmed, holding the hole was not a physical defect and, alternatively, that the condition was open and obvious as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the parking-lot depression is a "physical defect" under R.C. 2744.02(B)(4) | Shaw: genuine factual dispute exists that the divot was a physical defect causing the injury | BOE: the parking lot and grate operated as intended; the divot did not diminish utility or worth, so immunity applies | Held: Not a physical defect as a matter of law; no evidence the lot failed to operate or had diminished utility — immunity applies. |
| Whether the hazard was open and obvious | Shaw: she lacked notice — darkness, curb obstructed view, and color blended with asphalt reduced visibility | BOE: condition was discoverable by ordinary inspection; visible in parking-lot lighting; darkness does not negate openness | Held: Alternatively, the condition was open and obvious as a matter of law; BOE owed no duty. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pelletier v. Campbell, 153 Ohio St.3d 611 (2018) (describes three-tier R.C. 2744 immunity analysis).
- Simmers v. Bentley Constr. Co., 64 Ohio St.3d 642 (1992) (explains rationale of open-and-obvious doctrine).
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (2003) (premises owner owes no duty for open-and-obvious dangers).
- Smith v. McBride, 130 Ohio St.3d 51 (2011) (discusses exceptions to political-subdivision immunity under R.C. 2744).
- Lambert v. Clancy, 125 Ohio St.3d 231 (2010) (addresses reinstatement of immunity via defenses under R.C. 2744.03).