Tanio v. Ultimate Wash
2013 Ohio 939
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Tanio’s car wash visit in subfreezing weather in a self-serve bay, where she slipped on a patch of black ice and fractured her knee; a sign warned bays may be slippery.
- Ultimate Wash had a floor-heating system (boiler and glycol under floor) intended to prevent ice; its status was unknown to Tanio at the time of the fall.
- Tanio alleged Ultimate’s failure to maintain the premises allowed an icy condition; she claimed the ice indicated the heating system was off or not operating.
- Cross motions for summary judgment were filed; Ultimate argued the risk was open and obvious and that Ultimate had no duty to provide or ensure the heating system.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Ultimate, holding the ice in subfreezing weather is an open and obvious risk absent aggravation, and Tanio failed to prove reliance on the heating system; on appeal, the court reviewed de novo and affirmed.
- Tanio sought relief from judgment and appealed; the appellate court affirmed, and the judgment awarded Ultimate costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the ice open and obvious to bar duty? | Tanio argues ice was not open/obvious due to its black, transparent nature and weather conditions. | Ultimate contends open-and-obvious doctrine bars duty in subfreezing car-wash ice. | Open and obvious; no duty without aggravation. |
| Did the heating system’s status create a duty or reliance issue for which fees may be awarded? | Tanio contends failure to admit/deny regarding boiler inspection warranted Civ.R. 37 fees. | Ultimate contends boiler status was irrelevant and no duty to provide heating system. | No duty created by heating system; no Civ.R. 37 feeaward. |
Key Cases Cited
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (2003-Ohio-2573) (open-and-obvious duty doctrine applies to open risks)
- Simmers v. Bentley Constr. Co., 64 Ohio St.3d 642 (1992-Ohio-42) (open and obvious hazard analysis for landowners)
- Kostelnik v. Helper, 96 Ohio St.3d 1 (2002-Ohio-2985) (motion for relief from judgment standards on denial/denied motions)