Wiggins v. Moose Lodge 11
2016 Ohio 954
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- On Jan. 22, 2011, after a 5.7-inch snowfall and sustained subfreezing temperatures, Wiggins slipped and fell in the Moose Lodge #11 parking lot and sued for negligence alleging an "unnatural" accumulation of ice resulting from the Lodge's defective drainage.
- Wiggins arrived Jan. 21, 2011, observed packed snow/ruts from traffic, drank at the Lodge, and fell around 12:30 a.m.; he described the surface as snow/ice that had melted/refrozen ("refreezing").
- Wiggins identified Gerald Mazzoni, a general contractor with on-the-job drainage experience but no formal engineering training, as his expert; Mazzoni inspected the site briefly and opined generally that poor drainage could cause pooling and freezing.
- Mazzoni conceded he did not test conditions, did not review photographs or Wiggins’ deposition before testifying, could not say where the ice came from, and could not opine that the actual ice was an unnatural accumulation.
- The Lodge moved for summary judgment arguing the ice was a natural accumulation (no duty to remove) and Wiggins failed to produce evidence of active negligence creating an unnatural accumulation.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for the Lodge; the Tenth District affirmed, holding Wiggins produced only speculation and no evidence that the ice was unnaturally caused.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether owner owed duty because ice was an "unnatural accumulation" | Wiggins: ice resulted from drainage/runoff caused by defective parking-lot design (unnatural) | Lodge: snow/ice resulted from natural meteorological forces (natural accumulation) so no duty | Held for the Lodge. No evidence showed the accumulation was unnatural; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether expert testimony created genuine issue of fact | Wiggins: Mazzoni's testimony that poor drainage could cause pooling/refreezing supports a jury inference of unnatural accumulation | Lodge: Mazzoni offered only hypothetical possibility and expressly disclaimed knowing that runoff caused the ice here | Held: Expert testimony was too speculative and did not raise a genuine issue of material fact |
| Whether plaintiff's own testimony raised a triable issue | Wiggins: testified he fell on refrozen ice, implying unusual formation | Lodge: plaintiff admitted he could not identify cause; testimony describes typical packed/refrozen snowfall | Held: Plaintiff's testimony described natural refreezing; insufficient to show unnatural accumulation |
| Standard for surviving summary judgment on "unnatural accumulation" claim | Wiggins: factual inferences should be drawn in his favor to reach a jury | Lodge: plaintiff must present specific evidence (not speculation) that owner actively caused unnatural accumulation | Held: Appellate de novo review; plaintiff failed to meet Dresher burden—speculation insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Strother v. Hutchinson, 67 Ohio St.2d 282 (definitions of negligence elements)
- Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy, Inc., 18 Ohio St.3d 203 (business invitee duty of ordinary care)
- Debie v. Cochran Pharmacy-Berwick, Inc., 11 Ohio St.2d 38 (no duty for natural accumulations of ice and snow)
- Sidle v. Humphrey, 13 Ohio St.2d 45 (winter no-duty rule reaffirmed)
- Brinkman v. Ross, 68 Ohio St.3d 82 (landowner no duty for natural ice/snow; rationale)
- Lopatkovich v. Tiffin, 28 Ohio St.3d 204 (exception for active negligence creating unnatural accumulations)