Tarpley v. Aldi Inc. Ohio
2013 Ohio 624
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Tarpley, an 78-year-old plaintiff, fell outside an Aldi store after exiting with her daughter while near a handrail and a metal floor bracket.
- Tarpley’s fall occurred when her foot struck a metal bracket bolted to the ground beneath a vertical railing that extended from the handrail.
- Crews observed the bracket was affixed to the ground and noted the vertical railing was not connected to the bracket at the time of the fall.
- Aldi moved for summary judgment, contending the bracket was an open and obvious hazard and thus owed no duty to Tarpley.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in Aldi’s favor under the open-and-obvious doctrine; Tarpley appealed.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the metal bracket was open and obvious and there were no attendant circumstances to defeat the doctrine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the metal bracket was open and obvious | Tarpley argues the bracket was discernable but not obvious given age and circumstances | Aldi contends the bracket was open and obvious and thus no duty | Open-and-obvious; no duty found |
| Whether attendant circumstances negate open-and-obvious | Tarpley asserts age and location could excuse non-observation | Aldi argues no attendant circumstances exist | No attendant circumstances present |
| Whether lack of bolts attaching railing to bracket created a defect causing the fall | Tarpley alleged a defective railing/bracket system caused the trip | Aldi contends absence of bolts did not proximately cause the fall | No genuine issue; lack of bolts not shown to cause fall |
| Whether evidence supports that Tarpley touched the handrail and it failed | Tarpley claimed she touched the handrail; handrail failure could be causal | No reliable evidence that she touched the rail or that it failed | Inference insufficient; speculation barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Strother v. Hutchinson, 67 Ohio St.2d 282 (1981) (elements of negligence; duty of entrant)
- Gledon v. Greater Cleveland Reg. Transit Auth., 75 Ohio St.3d 312 (1996) (open-and-obvious doctrine and attendant circumstances)
- Eicher v. U.S. Steel Corp., 32 Ohio St.3d 248 (1987) (duty of care to invitees; known dangers)
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (2003) (open-and-obvious hazard as a complete bar to duty)
- Texler v. D.O. Summers Cleaners & Shirt Laundry Co., 81 Ohio St.3d 677 (1998) (open-and-obvious doctrine; misapplication cautions)
- Bumgardner v. Wal-Mart Stores, 2002-Ohio-6856 (2002) (open-and-obvious with respect to pallet-type hazard)
- Johnson v. Southview Hospital, 2012-Ohio-4974 (2012) (photographs and open-and-obvious assessment; track case fact pattern)