Earl Snyder v. Kings Sleep Shop, LLC
Court of Appeals No. WM-13-006
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WILLIAMS COUNTY
Decided: March 7, 2014
2014-Ohio-1003
SINGER, J.
Trial Court No. 12 CI 104
Brian A. Newberg, for appellee.
* * * * *
SINGER, J.
{¶ 1} Aрpellant appeals an order of the Williams County Court of Common Pleas granting summary judgment to a business owner in a premises liability negligence claim. Because we concur with the trial court that the hazard responsible for aрpellant‘s injury was open and obvious, we affirm.
{¶ 3} Appellee‘s store oсcupies three adjoining buildings, divided only by common walls through which appellee has constructed open doorways. Patrons enter through a single door to the street then move through these doorways from building to building. Because the floоr level of the three buildings is not the same, appellee has constructed ramps through the doorways.
{¶ 4} As appellant‘s party was shopping in the store, appellant‘s mother and his friend used one of the ramps to move from one building into another, descending approximately one foot. When appellant followed a few minutes later, he inadvertently placed his foot partially on the edge of the ramp causing him to fall. He was injured as a result of the fall.
{¶ 5} On June 12, 2012, appellant sued appellee alleging that his fall and resulting injuries were due to appellee‘s failure to remedy, or warn him of, an unreasonably dangerous condition on the premises. Appellee responded, denying liability.
{¶ 6} Following extensive discovery, appellee moved for summary judgment. Appellee argued that, if there was a dangerous condition on its property, it was open and obvious, absolving appellee оf a duty to warn and negating premises liability.
{¶ 7} Appellant responded, pointing out that the ramp was carpeted with material of the same color, texture and age as the floor on the lower level. It had no handrail or
{¶ 8} On these submissions, the court ruled. In a 19-page decision, the court concluded that appellee had no duty toward appellant bеcause the ramp and any danger inherent in its use were open and obvious. The court also concluded that any code or guideline violation did not negate the open and obvious doctrine and the furniture displayed in the stоre did not create any attendant circumstance as a matter of law. On these conclusions, the court granted appellee‘s motion for summary judgment.
{¶ 9} From this judgment, appellant now brings this appeal. Appellant sets forth the following five assignments of error:
- The trial court committed reversible error when it held that the ramp was open and obvious as a matter of law.
- The trial court committed reversible error by making material factual findings not supported by the testimonial record or with the cited caselaw itself.
The trial court committed reversible error in ruling that the law imposes an obligation to constantly look down while walking. - The trial court committed reversible error in holding that ADAG and OBC violations were “irrelevant.”
- The trial court committed reversible error in holding that no attendant circumstances were present.
I. Summary Judgment
{¶ 10} Appellate review of a summary judgment is de novo, Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 105, 671 N.E.2d 241 (1996), employing the same standard as trial courts. Lorain Natl. Bank v. Saratoga Apts., 61 Ohio App.3d 127, 129, 572 N.E.2d 198 (9th Dist.1989). The motion may be granted only when it is demonstrated:
(1) that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact; (2) that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, who is entitled to have the evidence construed most strongly in his favоr. Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64, 67, 375 N.E.2d 46 (1978),
Civ.R. 56(C) .
{¶ 11} When seeking summary judgment, a party must specifically delineate the basis upon which the motion is brought, Mitseff v. Wheeler, 38 Ohio St.3d 112, 526
II. Premises Liability
{¶ 12} Premises liability is a form of negligence. In general, to establish actionable negligence, the plaintiff must show that the defendant owes a duty to him or her which has been breached proximately resulting in the plaintiff‘s injury. Mussivand v. David, 45 Ohio St.3d 314, 318, 544 N.E.2d 265 (1989). The duty that an owner or occupier of premises owes to one who is injured on those premises is governed by the relationship between the partiеs. Light v. Ohio University, 28 Ohio St.3d 66, 67, 502 N.E.2d 611 (1986). Persons who come onto premises by invitation, express or implied, for purposes beneficial to the owner or occupier are considered business invitees. Id. at 68.
III. Assigned Errors
A. Factual Findings
{¶ 14} We shall discuss apрellant‘s second assignment of error first.
{¶ 15} The trial court begins its discussion of the evidence by stating that “The court finds as follows.” What follows is a list of 22 undisputed facts derived from the depositions, affidavits and interrogatories submitted by the parties in support of, or in opposition to, summary judgment.
{¶ 17} An examination of the material submitted in support and opposition to the summary judgment motion reveals that the facts the trial court enumerated, indeed, are undisputed. We conclude that the trial court‘s imрrecise use of the word “find” was not prejudicial to appellant. Appellant‘s second assignment of error is not well-taken.
B. Open and Obvious
{¶ 18} Considering those undisputed facts, we note that the multiple pictures of the ramp at issue reveal а well-lighted, uncluttered area. Although the carpeting matches that of the ramp in the room into which appellant was going, the carpet in the room appellant was leaving is of a markedly different color and texture аnd outlines the ramp as it declines into the next room. There was deposition testimony from appellant‘s friend and appellant‘s 75-year-old mother that they had no difficulty navigating the ramp. The incline of the ramp was sufficient to be sensed by someone walking on it (appellant had crossed more than half the ramp when he fell). A normally observant person would note that the furniture in the next room was at a level noticeably below the room from which
{¶ 19} On these facts, we can only concur with the conclusion of the trial court that any danger posed by this ramp was open and obvious to anyone exercising a reasonable awareness of his or her environment. Accordingly, appellant‘s first assignment of error is not well-taken.
C. Code Violations
{¶ 20} An exception to the open and obvious doctrine exists when a defendant fails to adhere to a statutory duty such that the violation constitutes negligence per se. Lang, 122 Ohio St.3d 120, 2009-Ohio-2495, 909 N.E.2d 120, ¶ 14. Such an exception does not apply to violations of administrativе rules such as the building code or the accessibility guidelines. Id. at ¶ 20. Accordingly, appellant‘s fourth assignment of error is not well-taken.
D. Obligation to Look Down
{¶ 21} The trial court did not impose a duty to “constantly look down while walking.” The court merely reiterated that a business invitee must be reasonably aware of his or her surroundings. Recovery for objectively observable conditions is barred. Williams v. Lowe‘s Home Ctrs., Inc., 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-06-1267, 2007-Ohio-2392, ¶ 18. Here, the trial court concluded that that the hazard at issue was such that a reasonably aware customеr would see had he been looking. Appellant‘s third assignment of error is not well-taken.
{¶ 22} Appellant maintains that the furniture displays in appellee‘s store constituted attendant circumstances so as to negate the open аnd obvious doctrine. Attendant circumstances may create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether a hazard is open and obvious. McGuire v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 118 Ohio App.3d 494, 498, 693 N.E.2d 807 (1st Dist.1996).
An attendant circumstance is a factor that contributes to the fall and is beyond the injured person‘s control. The phrase refers to all circumstances surrounding the event, such as time and place, the environment or background of the event, and the conditions normally existing that would unreasonably increase thе normal risk of a harmful result of the event. An “attendant circumstance” has also been defined to include any distraction that would come to the attention of a pedestrian in the same circumstances and reduce the degrеe of care an ordinary person would exercise at the time. (Citations omitted.) Jackson v. Pike Cty. Bd. of Commrs. 4th Dist. Pike No. 0CA805, 2010-Ohio-4875, ¶ 21.
{¶ 23} According to appellant, the “vignettes” in which appellee displayed its furniture were designed to attract his attention. Since such displays achieved their intended purpose, appellant insists, they constitute attendant circumstances, giving rise to a question of fact as to whether the ramp hazard was open and obvious.
{¶ 25} On consideration, the judgment of the William County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. It is ordered that appellant pay the court costs оf this appeal pursuant to
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J.
Arlene Singer, J.
Stephen A. Yarbrough, P.J.
CONCUR.
JUDGE
JUDGE
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio‘s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court‘s web site at: http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/?source=6.