Stewart v. AMF Bowling Ctrs., Inc.
2010 Ohio 5671
Ohio Ct. App.2010Background
- Stewart plaintiffs sued AMF Bowling Centers and Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Shield in Feb 2009 for injuries Ronald suffered from a fall attributed to a ramp/step-down hazard at AMF.
- Anthem paid benefits (at least $37,376.55) for Ronald’s injuries and reserved subrogation/reimbursement rights.
- AMF moved for summary judgment in Nov 2009, asserting the step-down hazard was open and obvious and thus no duty to warn.
- Ronald testified in Feb 2009 that he knew of the step-down and that he stepped backward into it, suffering a fractured ankle; he noted lack of railings and prior familiarity with the setup.
- Trial court granted summary judgment in Mar 2010, finding the hazard open and obvious and no attendant circumstances, thus no duty.
- Stewarts appealed, arguing there were attendant circumstances and issues of material fact; appellate review was de novo with focus on the open-and-obvious doctrine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether open-and-obvious hazard bars claim as law | Stewart argues attendant circumstances create a genuine issue of fact | AMF contends hazard was open and obvious with no attendant circumstances | Open and obvious hazard; no attendant circumstances; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Shump v. First Continental-Robinwood Assocs., 71 Ohio St.3d 414 (1994 Ohio) (premises liability duties for invitees; open-and-obvious bar if not concealed)
- Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy, Inc., 18 Ohio St.3d 203 (1985 Ohio) (open-and-obvious dangers negate duty to warn)
- Simmers v. Bentley Constr. Co., 64 Ohio St.3d 642 (1992 Ohio) (open-and-obvious doctrine; warning not required when danger apparent)