2019 Ohio 95
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- On June 12, 2015, 91‑year‑old Betty C. Williams fell in the dark second‑floor theater of the Strand Theatre while going to her seat and suffered a subdural hematoma.
- Williams had been to that theater and that balcony area before and acknowledged familiarity with the steps.
- She testified the theater was very dark ("could not see your hand in front of your face"), she did not use a flashlight or ask for assistance, and she missed/stepped down off a step and tumbled.
- Williams sued the Strand Theatre for negligence (premises liability), alleging inadequate lighting and violation of building code lighting requirements.
- The trial court granted the theatre's summary judgment motion, concluding the darkness was an open‑and‑obvious hazard so the owner owed no duty; Williams appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the theatre owed a duty despite darkness | Williams: lighting failure / code violation made darkness actionable; case should apply "step‑in‑the‑dark" analysis | Strand: darkness is open and obvious; no duty to warn or protect | Court: darkness is open and obvious; no duty—summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether building‑code noncompliance defeats open‑and‑obvious defense | Williams: code violation shows hazardous condition | Strand: code violation is evidence only and does not override open‑and‑obvious defense | Court: building‑code violation is not a per se exception; open‑and‑obvious defense still applies |
| Application of "step‑in‑the‑dark" rule / contributory negligence | Williams: step‑in‑the‑dark rule creates factual issue (theater altered steps) | Strand: plaintiff voluntarily entered darkness, was familiar with theater, and pointed to no defective step | Court: did not reach step‑in‑the‑dark because open‑and‑obvious doctrine dispositive; concurring opinion noted step‑in‑the‑dark relates to causation/comparative fault but found no evidence of defect |
| Standard for summary judgment on premises‑liability claim | Williams: disputed facts create genuine issue for trial | Strand: record viewed most favorably to Williams shows objective open and obvious condition | Court: reasonable minds could reach only one conclusion—darkness was open and obvious—so summary judgment appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (2003) (open‑and‑obvious doctrine bars duty for known hazards)
- Jeswald v. Hutt, 15 Ohio St.2d 224 (1968) (darkness is a warning of danger)
- Lang v. Holly Hill Motel, Inc., 122 Ohio St.3d 120 (2009) (building‑code violations are evidence of negligence but do not preclude open‑and‑obvious defense)
- Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy, Inc., 18 Ohio St.3d 203 (1985) (premises owner owes invitees ordinary care and must warn of latent dangers)
- Menifee v. Ohio Welding Prods., Inc., 15 Ohio St.3d 75 (1984) (elements of negligence: duty, breach, proximate cause, damages)
- Possin v. A.B.C. Motor Court Hotel, Inc., 45 Ohio St.2d 271 (1976) (step‑in‑the‑dark rule raises inference of plaintiff's lack of prudence but factual disputes defeat the inference)