2013 Ohio 2695
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Plaintiff Ralph Watts, a condominium resident and business invitee, slipped and fell on January 6, 2011 while walking from his driveway to the development mailboxes on a private street maintained by Richmond Run #1 Condominium Unit Owners Association and serviced for snow removal by Rossoll Landscaping.
- Watts testified he noticed icy, slushy conditions at the street edges and walked in the street (no sidewalks existed); he heard an approaching car, stepped toward the edge to avoid it, and slipped on slush/ice at the edge.
- He initially said a snow bank impeded his escape but later admitted he fell on slush/ice before reaching any three-to-four-foot snow embankment.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing the hazard was an open and obvious natural winter condition and that they did not cause an unnatural or improper accumulation.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; the court of appeals affirmed, finding the slush/ice was a natural, open-and-obvious condition and no exception (unnatural accumulation, improper accumulation, or attendant circumstances) applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the hazard causing the fall was open and obvious | Watts argued the snow banks/plowed accumulations made the condition non-obvious or created a hazard beyond normal winter conditions | Richmond/Rossoll argued slush/ice at the street edge was a natural, open-and-obvious winter condition (no special duty) | Court: Hazard was an open-and-obvious natural accumulation; open-and-obvious doctrine applies |
| Whether the snow banks were an "unnatural accumulation" exception | Watts claimed plowed snow embankments were man-made/unnatural and could defeat the no-duty winter rule | Defendants said plowed banks at street edges are expected and not "unnatural" | Court: Plowed snow at street edges is an expected/natural accumulation; exception not met |
| Whether attendant circumstances (oncoming car, uncleared walkways) negate open-and-obvious rule | Watts argued the approaching car and unplowed walkways distracted him or increased risk, creating a factual issue | Defendants said Watts observed the slush before moving and was not distracted; attendant circumstances did not objectively prevent recognition of hazard | Court: Attendant-circumstances exception did not apply — objective person would have noticed the hazard; Watts observed it before his fall |
| Whether contractual duties or negligent snow removal created a triable issue | Watts relied on association bylaws and snow-removal contract alleging negligent clearing or improper piling | Defendants argued no evidence shows negligent plowing/creation of an unnatural condition increasing risk | Court: No evidence of negligent removal or that cleared walkways would have avoided the slush; no triable issue on breach causation |
Key Cases Cited
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (moving party’s burden on summary judgment)
- Mitseff v. Wheeler, 38 Ohio St.3d 112 (summary judgment burdens in Ohio)
- Sidle v. Humphrey, 13 Ohio St.2d 45 (occupier not liable for known or open-and-obvious natural ice/snow hazards)
- Brinkman v. Ross, 68 Ohio St.3d 82 (everyone assumed to appreciate risks of natural ice/snow accumulations)
- Mikula v. Tailors, 24 Ohio St.2d 48 (basis for improper-accumulation exception principles)
- Kinkey v. Jewish Hosp. Assn. of Cincinnati, 16 Ohio App.2d 93 (standard for negligent snow removal creating liability)