Rowe v. PseekosRowe v. Pseekos
KLATT, J.
{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Carrie L. Rowe, appeals a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas granting summary judgment to defendants-appellees, James and Stella Pseekos. For the following reasons, we affirm.
{¶ 2} The Pseekoses hired Evelin Lauk Stansell to clean their home every two weeks. On November 11, 2008, Stansell and Rowe arrived at the Pseekos home to clean it. As part of the cleaning, Rowe dusted in the living room. A clock was situated in the wall unit in the living room. While Rowe was dusting the clock, the clock‘s electrical cord shocked her. The shock injured Rowe.
{¶ 4} Rowe now appeals and assigns the following error:
Trial Court erred by failing to apply Ohio law, which mandates Defendants inspect and maintain their electrical appliances and warn business invitees such as Appellant Rowe of latent hazards.
{¶ 5} A trial court will grant summary judgment under
{¶ 6} To establish actionable negligence, a plaintiff must show thе existence of a duty, the breach of that duty, and injury resulting proximately therefrom. Ruther v. Kaiser, 134 Ohio St.3d 408, 2012-Ohio-5686, ¶ 16. Rowe asserts a negligence claim based on premises liability. Thеrefore, the scope of the legal duty that Pseekoses owe to Rowe depends whether Rowe was a trespasser, licensee, or invitee. Gladon v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Auth., 75 Ohio St.3d 312, 315 (1996). The parties dispute whether Rowe should be classified as a licensee or an invitee. For purposes of this decision, we will assume, without deciding, that Rowe is correct in arguing that she was an invitee.
{¶ 7} A landowner is not an insurer of invitees’ safety. Lang v. Holly Hill Motel, Inc., 122 Ohio St.3d 120, 2009-Ohio-2495, ¶ 11. Rather, a landowner owes invitees “a
{¶ 8} A landowner ” ‘has a duty to undertake reasonable inspectiоns, not to inspect everything that might conceivably cause injury.’ ” (Emphasis sic.) Aldamen v. Sunburst USA, Inc., 10th Dist. No. 08AP-235, 2008-Ohio-5071, ¶ 17, quoting Tarkany v. Bd. of Trustees of Ohio State Univ., 10th Dist. No. 90AP-1398 (June 4, 1991). Moreover, a landowner who undertakes an inspection is not held to а 100 percent success rate, if the inspection was reasonable under the circumstances. Fitch v. Lake Cty. Historical Soc., 11th Dist. No. 2001-L-135, 2002-Ohio-4223, ¶ 31. What constitutes a “reasonable inspection” under the circumstances of a given case is ordinarily a question for the trier of fact. Aldaman at ¶ 17.
{¶ 9} In the case at bar, the dangerous condition was a damaged electrical cord attached to the clock. The record contains no photographs of the damage. In his depоsition, James Pseekos described the damage as consisting of “exposed wires in the middle of the cord.” (R. 107, at 16.) Like her husband, Stella Pseekos describеd the damage as an exposed wire, less than an inch in length. Both Pseekoses deny knowing of the exposed wire prior to Rowe‘s injury. The question, therеfore, is whether the Pseekoses reasonably inspected the clock. If they failed to reasonably inspect the clock, then they cаn be charged with constructive knowledge of the defect.
{¶ 10} The Pseekoses never engaged in a formal or official inspection of the clock, nor did they hire a professional to inspect their electrical appliances. The Pseekoses did
10. While I do not specifically recall looking at the cord, I believe if the wire in the cord was exposed when I changеd the time I would have noticed it. I did not notice any plastic missing from the cord when I changed the time.
* * *
22. While I did notice a portion of the plastic cord was off of the cord after Ms. Rowe claimed she was injured, this was not present on or about November 2, 2008 and there was no notice to me оf any missing portion of plastic on the cord prior to Ms. Rowe‘s alleged injury.
(R. 97.)
{¶ 11} James Pseekos’ testimony establishes that he inspected the cloсk. While James Pseekos’ inspection of the clock was cursory, nothing had alerted the Pseekoses that a more thorough inspection was necessary. Neither James nor Stella Pseekos had experienced any problems with the clock prior to Rowe‘s injury. The Pseekoses had no pets that might gnaw on electrical cords and expose the plastic-encased wires. Given this evidence, we conclude that reasonable minds could only find that James Pseekos’ inspection of the clock was reasonable. Consequently, the Pseekoses did not breach their duty tо conduct a reasonable inspection. Moreover, as the Pseekoses cannot be charged with constructive notice of the latent defect in the clock‘s electrical cord, they did not breach their duty to warn Rowe of the defect or otherwise make the cloсk reasonably safe. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court properly granted the Pseekoses summary judgment, and we overrule Rowe‘s аssignment of error.
{¶ 12} Both Rowe and the Pseekoses moved to strike portions of the other side‘s brief. We deny both motions.
Motions to strike denied; judgment affirmed.
DORRIAN and O‘GRADY, JJ., concur.