2021 Ohio 1913
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- On March 18, 2020, Darlene Spitzer sued Frisch's Restaurants after slipping and falling inside a Frisch’s in Hamilton, Ohio.
- At deposition Spitzer (age 68) testified the exterior pavement had been wet from rain, she assumed her shoe soles were wet, she did not wipe them, walked toward the cashier, and then slipped.
- Spitzer could not identify any specific substance on the floor or point to eyewitness testimony explaining what caused the fall.
- Frisch’s moved for summary judgment, arguing Spitzer failed to identify the cause of the fall or show Frisch’s had notice of any hazard.
- The trial court granted summary judgment, finding Spitzer had not produced evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact on causation or notice.
- The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Spitzer failed to prove the cause of her fall or that Frisch’s had actual or constructive notice of a hazardous condition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff identified the cause of the fall | Spitzer argued circumstantial evidence (wet shoes from outside) and the mere fact of the fall support an inference of a slippery foreign substance | Frisch’s argued Spitzer could not identify what caused her to fall and offered no eyewitness or direct evidence of a hazard | Court: Spitzer failed to identify the cause; summary judgment proper because plaintiff must identify or explain reason for fall |
| Whether the accident alone permits an inference of negligence | Spitzer contended the fall implies some slippery condition (possibly grease) on the floor | Frisch’s contended no presumption of negligence arises from an accident alone | Court: No presumption; mere occurrence of accident does not establish negligence |
| Whether Frisch’s had notice (actual or constructive) of a hazardous condition | Spitzer suggested a foreign substance (grease) existed and thus Frisch’s should be responsible | Frisch’s noted absence of evidence showing who spilled anything, how it got there, or how long it remained | Court: No evidence that Frisch’s created the hazard, had actual notice, or had constructive notice from sufficient duration; summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (explains movant's initial burden and nonmovant's response in summary judgment procedure)
- Stamper v. Middletown Hosp. Assn., 65 Ohio App.3d 65 (1989) (plaintiff must identify or explain the reason for a slip-and-fall)
- Parras v. Standard Oil Co., 160 Ohio St. 315 (1953) (mere happening of an accident does not create a presumption of negligence)
- Roberts v. RMB Enters., Inc., 197 Ohio App.3d 435 (2011) (summary judgment is appropriate to terminate litigation when no material issues remain)
- Touhey v. Ed's Tree & Turf, LLC, 194 Ohio App.3d 800 (2011) (moving party bears initial burden on summary judgment)
- Smedley v. Discount Drug Mart, Inc., 190 Ohio App.3d 684 (2010) (nonmoving party must present evidence showing a material factual dispute)