2020 Ohio 3293
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Neighbor Cecelia Weinkauf attended a christening party at Michael and Dulceia Pena’s home and immediately observed a family-room rug with a curled-up edge that would not lie flat.
- She discussed the curled rug with the host and other guests and suggested moving it; the host declined to turn it.
- About three hours later, while playing "catch" with the two-year-old celebrant and focusing on the child, Weinkauf tripped on the rug and sustained injuries.
- She sued the Penas for negligence, alleging they created/failed to remedy a hazardous condition and failed to warn.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the Penas, finding Weinkauf had actual knowledge of the rug condition (negating breach) and, alternatively, that the hazard was open and obvious.
- Weinkauf appealed; the appellate court reviewed summary judgment de novo and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty a host owes social guests | Penas had a duty to fix/secure the hazardous rug (duty to repair). | Host duty is limited to exercising ordinary care and warning guests of known dangerous conditions unknown to the guest. | Host duty defined by Scheibel: no obligation to repair or insure guest safety; limited to ordinary care and warning unknown dangers. |
| Effect of plaintiff's actual knowledge of the rug | Weinkauf asserts she reasonably assumed hosts would take care of it, so she lacked actionable knowledge. | She saw and discussed the curled rug on entry; that actual knowledge negates a failure-to-warn breach. | Actual knowledge (she observed and discussed the rug) defeats breach; failure to avoid a known peril is not excused by forgetting. |
| Open-and-obvious hazard and attendant-circumstance exception | Chasing the child created an attendant circumstance that prevents application of open-and-obvious defense. | The chase was Weinkauf’s voluntary activity, not a circumstance beyond her control; open-and-obvious applies alternatively. | Chasing was within plaintiff’s control and not an attendant circumstance; open-and-obvious doctrine supports summary judgment. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for summary judgment | There was a factual dispute about whether defendants could/should have remedied the rug during the party. | No evidence defendants breached a duty; no genuine issue of material fact under Civ.R.56. | No genuine issue of material fact; defendants entitled to judgment as a matter of law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Scheibel v. Lipton, 156 Ohio St. 308 (1951) (defines host’s duty to social guests; host not insurer and no implied warranty of safety)
- Raflo v. Losantiville Country Club, 34 Ohio St.2d 1 (1973) (plaintiff’s failure to avoid a known peril is not excused by forgetting; step case)
- Comer v. Risko, 106 Ohio St.3d 185 (2005) (summary judgment is reviewed de novo under Civ.R.56)
- Smith v. McBride, 130 Ohio St.3d 51 (2011) (summary judgment standards and Civ.R.56 application)
- Mullens v. Binsky, 130 Ohio App.3d 64 (10th Dist. 1998) (open-and-obvious rationale: the danger itself serves as a warning)
- McGuire v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 118 Ohio App.3d 494 (1st Dist. 1997) (discusses attendant-circumstance exception to open-and-obvious doctrine)