2019 Ohio 4508
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Plaintiff Tania Stewart fell on May 4, 2014 leaving a West Side Story performance at the Stranahan Theater after stepping on the edge of a curb that "crumbled"; she alleged wrist, elbow, shoulder and knee injuries.
- The exterior and parking area were dimly lit; Stewart testified she could not see the curb because it was dark. She returned three days later and took photographs of the crumbling curb.
- Stewart sued appellees (ST Performing Arts, LLC and Stranahan Theater Property Holdings, LLC) for negligence—failure to keep and maintain premises in a reasonably safe condition.
- Defendants asserted affirmative defenses that the condition was open and obvious and, alternatively, that they had no notice of any latent defect and could not have known without unreasonable inspection.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, finding the crumbling curb was an open-and-obvious hazard and, alternatively, that defendants were not on notice of any latent defect without unreasonably excessive inspections. Stewart appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Did the trial court conflate the open-and-obvious doctrine with duty/breach? | Trial court improperly conflated open-and-obvious with landowner's duty to maintain. | Trial court properly applied open-and-obvious as a threshold duty question and alternatively ruled no breach/notice. | Court: No conflation; trial court applied correct analysis and offered an alternative no-breach basis. |
| 2. Was the curb's inability to support weight a latent (hidden) defect or open-and-obvious? | Stewart: The portion she stepped on crumbled under her foot and was not visibly crumbled beforehand (latent). | Defendants: Photographs and condition (crumbling, eroding, overgrowth) made the hazard open and obvious. | Court: As a matter of law the crumbling/eroding curb was open and obvious; defendants owed no duty. |
| 3. Did defendants breach their duty to maintain and inspect? | Stewart: Defendants should have discovered and repaired the latent defect through reasonable inspection. | Defendants: No breach; either hazard was open-and-obvious or they lacked notice without excessive inspection. | Court: Moot—no duty because hazard was open and obvious. |
| 4. Could defendants have been on notice without excessive inspection? | Stewart: Visible decay in area put defendants on constructive notice; thus inspection would be reasonable. | Defendants: Any inspection necessary to discover the specific unstable spot would have been unreasonably excessive. | Court: Moot given finding that hazard was open and obvious; trial court alternatively found no basis to impose liability for defects requiring excessive investigative maintenance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (Ohio 2003) (open-and-obvious doctrine negates duty)
- Sidle v. Humphrey, 13 Ohio St.2d 45 (Ohio 1968) (principles underlying open-and-obvious rule)
- Simmers v. Bentley Constr. Co., 64 Ohio St.3d 642 (Ohio 1992) (open-and-obvious hazard serves as its own warning)
- Texler v. D.O. Summers Cleaners & Shirt Laundry Co., 81 Ohio St.3d 677 (Ohio 1998) (elements of negligence)
- Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy, Inc., 18 Ohio St.3d 203 (Ohio 1985) (business owner duties to invitees)
- Jeswald v. Hutt, 15 Ohio St.2d 224 (Ohio 1968) (darkness is a warning of danger and not an attendant circumstance excusing inattention)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (summary judgment burden-shifting framework)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1996) (standard of review on summary judgment)