2015 Ohio 5004
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- On July 22, 2012, plaintiff Icy Strevel stepped backward from her car in the parking lot of Community Market (owned by Fresh Encounters, Inc.), fell into a pothole, and claimed injuries and medical expenses.
- Strevel had prior experience shopping at the market and testified she knew there were "holes all around" the parking lot, but she did not see this particular pothole before she stepped back.
- Strevel filed suit in 2014 for negligence; Fresh Encounters moved for summary judgment arguing the pothole was an open and obvious hazard that negated its duty to warn.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendant; Strevel appealed contending genuine issues of material fact existed (open-and-obvious hazard, attendant circumstances, distraction) precluding summary judgment.
- The appellate court conducted a de novo review, framed the dispute under premises-liability law for invitees, and considered whether attendant circumstances created a factual dispute defeating the open-and-obvious doctrine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether owner owed duty / breach for pothole | Strevel argues owner breached duty to maintain safe premises causing her injuries | Fresh Encounters contends duty is negated because hazard was open and obvious | Court: Strevel was an invitee but owner owed no duty because hazard was open and obvious |
| Whether pothole was open and obvious | Strevel: she did not see the pothole; visibility and other factors may make it not obvious | Fresh Encounters: Strevel knew of general potholes and could have seen this one; testimony shows it was visible | Court: Objective inquiry — pothole was open and obvious as a matter of law |
| Whether attendant circumstances create fact issue | Strevel: placing groceries, backing up, and possible traffic distracted her and constitute attendant circumstances | Fresh Encounters: no evidence of attendant circumstances beyond plaintiff's own actions; attendant circumstances must be beyond plaintiff's control | Court: No evidence of qualifying attendant circumstances; plaintiff's activity alone insufficient |
| Whether contributory negligence/assumption of risk preclude summary judgment | Strevel: such defenses raise factual issues for a jury | Fresh Encounters: relied on open-and-obvious doctrine to eliminate duty; contributory defenses not necessary | Court: Open-and-obvious doctrine dispositive; summary judgment proper as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (2003) (explains focus on the open-and-obvious doctrine as a duty question and its objective standard)
- Sidle v. Humphrey, 13 Ohio St.2d 45 (1968) (establishes that invitees must protect themselves from obvious hazards)
- Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy, Inc., 18 Ohio St.3d 203 (1985) (business invitee standard: owner must maintain premises reasonably safe)
- Texler v. D.O. Summers Cleaners, 81 Ohio St.3d 677 (1998) (elements of negligence defined)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (1996) (summary judgment standard — de novo appellate review)
- Vahila v. Hall, 77 Ohio St.3d 421 (1997) (clarifies Civ.R. 56 summary judgment requirements)