Vanderbilt v. Pier 27, L.L.C.
2 N.E.3d 966
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Pier 27 (a restaurant/bar) maintained a brick-and-mortar outdoor fire pit (~5 ft diameter, knee-high) with an open fire permit and annual inspections.
- Amy Vanderbilt, a repeat customer (had visited 7–10 times), stood by the fire pit on Oct. 2, 2010 after drinking several beers to get warm.
- While standing by the pit she was inadvertently bumped by another patron, lost her balance, and fell into the fire pit, suffering a broken wrist and third-degree burns.
- Vanderbilt sued Pier 27 for negligence and loss of consortium; Pier 27 moved for summary judgment arguing the fire pit was an open and obvious danger and it owed no duty.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Pier 27; the appellate court affirmed, holding (as a matter of law) the open-and-obvious doctrine barred Vanderbilt’s negligence claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pier 27 owed a duty when the hazard was open and obvious | Vanderbilt: fire pit was unreasonably dangerous so open-and-obvious doctrine shouldn’t bar her claim of failure to maintain premises safely | Pier 27: fire pit was an open and obvious danger; thus no duty to warn or protect invitees | Court: held open-and-obvious doctrine removes duty; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether the open-and-obvious rule only negates a duty to warn, not duty to maintain | Vanderbilt: cites New York authority arguing the rule only negates warning duty, not maintenance duty | Pier 27: Ohio precedent treats the doctrine as eliminating the duty of care entirely | Court: declined to adopt New York approach and followed Ohio precedent that no duty exists for open-and-obvious hazards |
| Whether attendant circumstances (crowd) negate the open-and-obvious doctrine | Vanderbilt: crowd distracted her, creating an attendant circumstance exception | Pier 27: crowd presence does not create the required distraction or significantly enhance the hazard | Court: no evidence Vanderbilt was distracted; crowd alone not an attendant circumstance; exception did not apply |
| Whether Pier 27 had a duty to control/supervise crowd or patrons | Vanderbilt: owner should have controlled crowd to prevent bumping into pit | Pier 27: no evidence of criminal or foreseeably dangerous conduct; not insurer of patrons’ safety | Court: no special duty to control absent foreseeability of third-party danger; no liability for inadvertent bump |
Key Cases Cited
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (Ohio 2003) (open-and-obvious doctrine bars landowner duty when danger is patent)
- Lang v. Holly Hill Motel, Inc., 122 Ohio St.3d 120 (Ohio 2009) (reaffirming viability of open-and-obvious doctrine in Ohio)
- Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy, Inc., 18 Ohio St.3d 203 (Ohio 1985) (business owes invitees ordinary care to maintain reasonably safe premises)
- Wellman v. East Ohio Gas Co., 160 Ohio St. 103 (Ohio 1953) (elements of negligence: duty, breach, proximate cause, injury)