2013 Ohio 5770
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- On Feb. 4, 2011, Thurman Trowbridge, a contracted security guard at Franciscan University, slipped on a shiny/mopped landing in Egan Hall, fractured vertebrae, and sued for negligence.
- Student custodian had recently mopped the floor; witnesses dispute whether "wet floor" signs were posted and how much water was present.
- University moved for summary judgment arguing the hazard was open and obvious and that Trowbridge assumed the risk.
- The trial court treated disputed facts in favor of Trowbridge but granted summary judgment finding he knew the floor might be wet and proceeded anyway.
- On appeal the Seventh District reviewed de novo and considered whether the open-and-obvious doctrine or implied assumption of risk barred recovery.
- Court reversed and remanded: open-and-obvious did not apply as a matter of law, and implied assumption of risk/comparative negligence raised factual issues for a jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the floor condition was "open and obvious" | Trowbridge: shiny appearance did not objectively indicate it was wet; genuine dispute whether danger was observable | Univ.: shine meant he knew it might be wet/slippery so danger was open and obvious | Reversed trial court's grant on this ground — objective test unresolved; summary judgment improper |
| Whether Trowbridge assumed the risk by proceeding despite knowing a possible hazard | Trowbridge: did not fully appreciate extent of risk; absence of signs/material facts create jury question | Univ.: his testimony shows awareness of risk and voluntary choice to proceed, barring recovery | Assumption of risk may apply but is fact-intensive; left to trier of fact under comparative negligence |
| Whether absence/presence of warning signs is dispositive | Trowbridge: lack of signs supports that risk was not appreciated and affects comparative fault | Univ.: signs (or nature of the condition) made danger known | Presence/absence of signs is disputed and material; not dispositive on summary judgment |
| Whether summary judgment was proper | Trowbridge: genuine issues of material fact exist precluding summary judgment | Univ.: facts show only one reasonable conclusion favorable to Univ. | Court: summary judgment improper; remanded for factfinder to determine comparative negligence/assumption issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Menifee v. Ohio Welding Prods., 15 Ohio St.3d 75 (elements of negligence)
- Light v. Ohio Univ., 28 Ohio St.3d 66 (duty to invitees to maintain safe premises)
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (open-and-obvious doctrine bars duty to warn)
- Simmers v. Bentley Constr. Co., 64 Ohio St.3d 642 (owner may expect invitees to discover obvious dangers)
- Brinkman v. Ross, 68 Ohio St.3d 82 (invitees expected to take precautions against obvious dangers)
- Briere v. Lathrop Co., 22 Ohio St.2d 166 (elements of assumption of risk)