2017 Ohio 8161
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Michael Spence, a construction contractor and business invitee, went to Baird Brothers to pick up doors from a warehouse.
- He knew the warehouse had a mechanically operated overhead industrial door that moved vertically.
- After initially opening the door, Spence re-entered the warehouse while the 16-foot door was being closed by a Baird employee and was struck on the head.
- Spence and his wife sued Baird for negligence; Baird moved for summary judgment arguing the door’s operation was an open and obvious danger.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Baird; Spence appealed challenging the open-and-obvious determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the door’s hazard was open and obvious | Spence: attendant circumstances (loud diesel truck noise; employee closing door) prevented him from discovering the danger | Baird: the door operated normally and the hazard was objectively open and obvious | Court: hazard was open and obvious; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether attendant circumstances preclude open-and-obvious finding | Spence: noise and employee’s actions distracted him and are attendant circumstances | Baird: those are ordinary, commonly encountered conditions that do not negate openness | Court: noises and closing the door on a cold day are ordinary, not attendant, so they do not prevent summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (Ohio 2003) (open-and-obvious dangers relieve landowner of duty)
- Anderson v. St. Francis–St. George Hosp., 77 Ohio St.3d 82 (Ohio 1997) (elements of negligence: duty, breach, causation, damages)
- Simmers v. Bentley Constr. Co., 64 Ohio St.2d 642 (Ohio 1980) (landowner may expect entrants to discover obvious dangers)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (summary judgment: movant’s initial burden and nonmoving party’s reciprocal burden)
- Byrd v. Smith, 110 Ohio St.3d 24 (Ohio 2006) (summary judgment standard clarification)
- Ohio Gov't Risk Mgmt. Plan v. Harrison, 115 Ohio St.3d 241 (Ohio 2007) (appellate review of summary judgment is de novo)