Smith v. Ironwood, 2022 Ohio 875

Background

Plaintiffs Terri and Douglas Smith bought a condominium in the Ironwood at Shaker Run development; Towne Properties provided common-area maintenance and Ironwood is the condo association. The resident handbook (given after purchase) prohibited chemical de-icers and stated sand-only traction and a 2-inch threshold for snow removal by contractor.
On January 19, 2015 Terri slipped on ice crossing Double Eagle Court to a parking space; the area was dark and the ice formed from runoff off a sloped, grassy island into curb drains. The area was common ground maintained by defendants.
Plaintiffs reported the fall to the association manager, who acknowledged a drainage problem; several months later Ironwood contracted to install French drains in the area.
Plaintiffs sued for negligence and breach of contract (handbook). Defendants moved for summary judgment; the trial court denied that motion and, after a bench trial, found defendants negligent under the “substantially more dangerous” exception to the no-duty winter rule and awarded stipulated damages; the trial court rejected the breach-of-contract claim.
On appeal the denial of summary judgment was held harmless (trial on merits occurred), but the appellate court concluded the trial court’s negligence ruling was against the manifest weight of the evidence and reversed that judgment; the court affirmed dismissal of the breach-of-contract claim.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of defendants' motion for summary judgment was reversible error	Smiths: factual disputes existed so denial proper	Defendants: no duty owed as ice was natural; open-and-obvious; no superior knowledge	Appellate: denial harmless/moot because case proceeded to full trial in plaintiffs' favor (no reversible error on that interlocutory ruling)
Whether the natural ice accumulation was "substantially more dangerous" and defendants had superior knowledge (exception to no-duty winter rule)	Smiths: drainage caused excessive accumulation making condition substantially more dangerous and defendants knew of the problem	Defendants: ice was a natural accumulation, no superior knowledge, mere quantity of ice doesn't trigger exception	Appellate: trial court erred — evidence did not show a concealed hazard or superior knowledge; quantity alone insufficient; negligence judgment reversed and judgment entered for defendants
Applicability of open-and-obvious doctrine and the step-in-the-dark rule	Smiths: black ice was not observable; prior safe trips meant no step-into-darkness defense	Defendants: darkness/open-and-obvious and step-in-the-dark negate duty or are contributory	Appellate: moot after reversal on manifest-weight grounds; trial court had rejected these defenses but appellate resolution on negligence made them unnecessary
Whether the resident handbook created an enforceable maintenance contract and was breached	Smiths: handbook and manager testimony established a maintenance obligation to remove/treat ice	Defendants: handbook was informational, not a contract; no meeting of the minds and no evidence of a breach or triggering conditions	Appellate: handbook is not a contract between the parties (no offer/acceptance/consideration); even if treated as contract, plaintiffs failed to prove breach; dismissal affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Sidle v. Humphrey, 13 Ohio St.2d 45 (no-duty winter rule for natural snow/ice hazards)
Mikula v. Tailors, 24 Ohio St.2d 48 (natural accumulation concealing a dangerous hole can be "substantially more dangerous")
Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (civil manifest-weight standard)
Ortiz v. Jordan, 562 U.S. 180 (interlocutory summary-judgment orders rendered harmless after full trial)
Posin v. A. B. C. Motor Court Hotel, 45 Ohio St.2d 271 (step-in-the-dark rule explained)
Jeswald v. Hutt, 15 Ohio St.2d 224 (darkness is an open warning of danger)
Episcopal Retirement Homes, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Indus. Relations, 61 Ohio St.3d 366 (elements and formation requirements for contracts)