Renzi v. HillyerRenzi v. Hillyer
Christopher J. Ankuda, 815 Superior Avenue East, 1615 Superior Building, Cleveland, OH 44114 (For Defendants-Appellees).
TIMOTHY P. CANNON, P.J.
{¶1} Appellants, John and Cecily Renzi, appeal the judgment of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas granting appellees, Mark and Jessica Hillyer‘s, motion for summary judgment. At issue is whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment when tenant John Renzi sustained injuries after falling through his condominium stairs and when the landlords had no knowledge or reason to know the stairs were defective. For the reasons that follow, the judgment is affirmed.
{¶3} On September 27, 2010, at around 6:30 p.m., Mr. Renzi was outside with his stepdaughter‘s dog. Walking at a “natural pace,” Mr. Renzi descended the stairs, as he had done countless times before. As usual, the stairs felt “sturdy and normal.” On this specific occasion, however, one stair suddenly gave way. As a result, Mr. Renzi fell and sustained injuries. Though there were no witnesses, Mrs. Renzi heard the commotion from inside the condominium and quickly came to her husband‘s rescue.
{¶4} The Renzis subsequently filed a complaint alleging negligence and loss of consortium. Specifically, the Renzis contended the Hillyers failed to meet their statutory duty as landlords under
{¶5} The Hillyers filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds they had no notice—actual or constructive—of any defective condition and, therefore, no knowledge or reason to know there was any defect. In support, they highlighted Mr. Renzi‘s deposition testimony, wherein he explained there were never any issues with the steps, and as such, the Hillyers never had notice of any issues concerning the
{¶6} The trial court granted the motion. The Renzis now timely appeal and assert one assignment of error for consideration by this court:
{¶7} “The trial court committed prejudicial error when it found that Appellants failed to provide evidence that the subject injury was foreseeable, that Appellees had no duty to inspect the subject stairs, there was no genuine issue of material fact and that the Appellees were entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.”
{¶8} Pursuant to
{¶9} (1) No genuine issue as to any material fact remains to be litigated; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) it appears from the evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and viewing such evidence most strongly in favor of the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that conclusion is adverse to that party. Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317, 327 (1977).
{¶10} To prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the moving party has the initial burden to affirmatively demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact to be resolved in the case, relying on evidence in the record pursuant to
{¶12} Though conceding the trial court‘s analysis in granting summary judgment was “generally correct,” the Renzis nonetheless argue the Hillyers, as owners or landlords of the subject property, had an affirmative duty to inspect the premises, detect a potential danger in the stairs, and repair them. The Renzis contend
{¶13}
{¶14} (A) A landlord who is a party to a rental agreement shall do all of the following:
{¶15} (1) Comply with the requirements of all applicable building, housing, health, and safety codes that materially affect health and safety;
{¶16} (2) Make all repairs and do whatever is reasonably necessary to put and keep the premises in a fit and habitable condition.
{¶17} With regard to
{¶18} The Ohio Supreme Court addressed
{¶19} Thus, Shroades and Sikora paired the well-founded and long-established notice requirement with the statute, a condition the General Assembly did not purport to abrogate when the statute was enacted in 1974. Indeed, as noted above, the statute was not meant to impose strict liability (or “liability per se“). This is based upon the recognition that there must be some element of notice prior to the imposition of landlord liability. Sikora, supra, 496.
{¶21} In this summary judgment exercise, the Hillyers attached deposition testimony which illustrated they had no notice—actual or constructive—concerning any defective condition of the stairs. In fact, Mr. Renzi testified he did not realize the stairs were defective, nor did he have any reason to suspect the stairs were defective. Mr. Renzi was in the best position to detect any potential defect because he used the steps on a regular basis and assessed property defects for a living, working for an apartment
{¶22} Even assuming there was a duty to inspect, there is no evidence to suggest an inspection would have disclosed any defect in the stairs. Though the Renzis argue the Hillyers had a duty to find and repair the defective stairs, there is no evidence the stairs showed any sign of a defect. Rather, as explained above, the converse is true: Mr. Renzi noted the stairs seemed “sturdy and normal“. As the burden shifted to the Renzis, it was incumbent upon them to place evidence in the record which might have indicated the Hillyers had some type of notice. As a result, summary judgment was wholly appropriate.
{¶23} The Renzis’ sole assignment of error is without merit.
{¶24} The judgment of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
CYNTHIA WESTCOTT RICE, J.,
THOMAS R. WRIGHT, J.,
concur.