Walworth v. Khoury, 2021 Ohio 3458

On Feb. 27, 2018, John Walworth tripped and fell down defendant Judy Khoury’s basement stairs after his left foot contacted a pair of Khoury’s shoes at the top of the stair landing; he sustained serious injuries requiring multiple surgeries.
Walworth and Khoury were engaged at the time and later married; Walworth was a frequent visitor and social guest who entered the rear door and basement landing routinely.
Walworth was carrying a sealed box of four one‑gallon vinegar containers with both hands and testified he did not look down because he did not expect shoes to be there; he said had he looked/turned his head he would have seen the shoes.
Photographs submitted by Walworth (taken later) show Khoury’s shoes in plain view on the left side of the landing; Walworth acknowledged they were noticeable in the photos.
Khoury testified she did not see the fall but admitted she believed the shoes may have caused it; she did not notify Walworth the shoes were there.
The trial court granted summary judgment for Khoury, finding the shoes were an open-and-obvious hazard and no attendant circumstances defeated that doctrine; Walworth appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Khoury’s shoes were an open-and-obvious hazard	Shoes were not reasonably observable given circumstances (carrying a box, door position, short landing, unexpected placement)	Shoes were in plain view and readily discoverable; plaintiff didn’t look; open-and-obvious doctrine applies	Court held shoes were open and obvious; summary judgment for Khoury
Whether attendant‑circumstances exception defeats open-and-obvious rule	Attendant circumstances existed: carrying a box, inward‑opening door blocking view, immediate right turn, small landing, prior absence of shoes	Those conditions were ordinary, within plaintiff’s control, or not distracting; carrying the box was not outside plaintiff’s control	Court held no attendant circumstances; exception did not apply

Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (summary‑judgment burden and proof framework)
Menifee v. Ohio Welding Prods., Inc., 15 Ohio St.3d 75 (Ohio 1984) (elements of negligence: duty, breach, proximate cause, injury)
Gladon v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Auth., 75 Ohio St.3d 312 (Ohio 1996) (entrant status defines landowner duty)
Scheibel v. Lipton, 156 Ohio St. 308 (Ohio 1951) (definition and duties owed to a social guest)
Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (Ohio 2003) (open‑and‑obvious doctrine obviates duty to warn)
Simmers v. Bentley Constr. Co., 64 Ohio St.3d 642 (Ohio 1992) (rationale: obvious hazards themselves serve as warnings)