Vickie Spenard v. Specialized IRA Services FBO Account 103-206 and Property Connection, LLC, 24-ica-93

Plaintiff, Vickie Spenard, temporarily resided in a rental property owned by Respondents while her home was being repaired after a fire.
The rental property had undergone renovations by Property Connection, but failed to have a handrail installed on the top flight of interior stairs, in violation of City of Huntington Code which incorporates the International Property Maintenance Code.
Spenard was aware of the missing handrail before moving in and did not notify the owners of the deficiency; she used the stairs multiple times without incident prior to her fall.
On December 25, 2021, Spenard fell down the stairs and was seriously injured; she has no memory of the incident, and her husband's account was contradicted by her own testimony.
Spenard sued for negligence, alleging the code violation (missing handrail) was the proximate cause of her injury; the trial court granted summary judgment for Defendants, citing the open and obvious doctrine and lack of evidence of proximate cause.
On appeal, Spenard argued the court misapplied West Virginia Code § 55-7-28 (the open and obvious doctrine) and erred by finding no genuine issue of material fact regarding causation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Application of the open and obvious doctrine (WV Code § 55-7-28)	The court misapplied the doctrine and failed to consider statutory violations as required by subsection (c), which should weigh against summary judgment.	The danger (missing handrail) was open, obvious, and equally known to both parties, barring liability as a matter of law.	The doctrine applies; both parties had equal knowledge, so no duty was owed.
Proximate cause of injury	Code violation establishes prima facie negligence and causation is a fact for the jury, not to be decided on summary judgment.	No evidence links the missing handrail to the fall; plaintiff cannot recall the incident, and her husband's account is discredited.	No genuine issue of material fact; absence of causal evidence means no triable claim.
Effect of City Code violation	Statutory violation should preclude summary judgment and establish negligence per se.	Code violation alone is insufficient without proof of proximate cause for injury.	Violation noted, but plaintiff failed to show it proximately caused the injury.
Necessity for jury trial on facts	Proximate cause and negligence should be factual questions left for jury determination.	Absence of evidence supporting causation justifies summary judgment as a matter of law.	No reasonable jury could find for plaintiff; summary judgment affirmed.

Painter v. Peavy, 192 W. Va. 189 (W. Va. 1994) (summary judgment standard in West Virginia appellate review)
United Bank, Inc. v. Blosser, 218 W. Va. 378 (W. Va. 2005) (standards for granting summary judgment)
Williams v. Precision Coil, Inc., 194 W. Va. 52 (W. Va. 1995) (burden on nonmoving party in summary judgment)
Webb v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co., 121 W. Va. 115 (W. Va. 1939) (elements of negligence claim including duty, breach, proximate cause)
Butner v. Highlawn Mem’l Park Co., 247 W. Va. 479 (W. Va. 2022) (clarifying open and obvious doctrine in premises liability)
Jividen v. Law, 194 W. Va. 705 (W. Va. 1995) (definition of genuine issue and material fact for summary judgment)