open and obvious doctrine in Ohio

2025As such, the open-and-obvious test “‘properly considers the nature of the dangerous condition itself, as opposed to the nature of the plaintiff’s conduct in Case No. 24 MA 0094 –8– encountering it.’” Id., quoting Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 , 2003-Ohio-2573 , 788 N.E.2d 1088, ¶ 13 . . . . ...

2025As such, the open-and-obvious test “‘properly considers the nature of the dangerous condition itself, as opposed to the nature of the plaintiff’s conduct in Case No. 24 MA 0094 –8– encountering it.’” Id., quoting Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 , 2003-Ohio-2573 , 788 N.E.2d 1088, ¶ 13 . . . . ...

2024Stark County, Case No. 2023CA00054 12 {¶27} In Lang v. Holly Hill Motel, Inc., 2009-Ohio-2495 , the issue before the Ohio Supreme Court was “whether a violation of an administrative building code provision prohibits application of the open and obvious doctrine and precludes summary judgment on a negligence claim.” Lang at ¶ 1 .

2024The Lang Court ultimately held, “The open-and-obvious doctrine may be asserted as a defense to a claim of liability arising from a violation of the Ohio Basic Building Code.” Lang, 2009-Ohio-2495 at syllabus.

2025Co., 64 Ohio St.3d 642, 644 , 1992- Ohio-42. “‘Thus, the owner or occupier may reasonably expect that persons entering the premises will discover those dangers and take appropriate measures to protect themselves.’” Fabian at ¶ 9 , quoting Simmers at 644 . {¶10} Therefore, when courts apply the open-and-obvious doctrine: [T]hey must focus on the fact that the doctrine relates to the threshold issue of duty.

2023Co., 64 Ohio St.3d 642, 644 , 597 N.E.2d 504 (1992). {¶ 16} The Supreme Court of Ohio has cautioned that when courts apply the open- and-obvious rule, “they must focus on the fact that the doctrine relates to the threshold -7- issue of duty.

2025Plaintiff argues that “[t]here were no wet floor signs, barriers, or warnings of any kind[,]” “the facts of this case show a dangerous condition that was neither obvious nor warned of, in a work environment where [Plaintiff] had no control over maintenance or signage[,]” “[t]he leak was part of a long-standing and known problem, unaddressed despite repeated complaints[,]” and “[Plaintiff] was performing assigned duties, under direction, in a hazardous space created and controlled by [Defendant].” (Plaintiff’s Response, p. 2). {¶14} To prevail on a claim for negligence, Plaintiff must prove by

2020No. 12AP-787, 2013-Ohio-5106, ¶ 17 (noting "inadequate lighting acts as a warning itself to proceed with caution"). {¶ 10} Scott argues that the open-and-obvious doctrine does not apply in this case because of attendant circumstances, and points to four arguments: (a) the pothole was concealed from view by his vehicle, (b) he did not have exact knowledge of where the pothole was located, (c) he was distracted by the act of pumping and the vehicular traffic, and (d) the pothole was difficult to see due to its color and position.

2025However, under the open-and-obvious doctrine, a premises No. 24AP-598 5 owner “is under no duty to protect a business invitee against dangers which are known to such invitee or are so obvious and apparent to such invitee that he may reasonably be expected to discover them and protect himself against them.” Sidle v. Humphrey, 13 Ohio St.2d 45 (1968), paragraph one of the syllabus.

2025Instead, a business owner has a duty to warn invitees “of actual dangers on the property if [the business owner’s] knowledge of those dangers is superior to that of the invitees.” Francis at ¶ 32 , citing Occhipinti at ¶ 20 . {¶9} Nonetheless, the business owner has no duty “‘to protect a business invitee against dangers which are known to such invitee or are so obvious and apparent to such invitee that [s]he may reasonably be expected to discover them and protect h[er]self against them.’” Fabian v. May, 2021-Ohio-2882, ¶ 9 (11th Dist.), quoting Sidle v. Humphrey, 13 Ohio St.2d 45 (1968), para

2009Co. (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 642 , 597 N.E.2d 504 ; Anderson v. Ruoff (1995), 100 Ohio App.3d 601 , 654 N.E.2d 449 . {¶ 26} The open-and-obvious doctrine provides that a premises owner owes no duty to persons entering those premises regarding dangers that are open and obvious.

2009Co. (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 642 , 597 N.E.2d 504 ; Anderson v. Ruoff (1995), 100 Ohio App.3d 601 , 654 N.E.2d 449 . {¶ 26} The open-and-obvious doctrine provides that a premises owner owes no duty to persons entering those premises regarding dangers that are open and obvious.

2019Summit No. 23111, 2006-Ohio-5423, ¶ 14 (“[C]onsideration of attendant circumstances is merely a generalized version of the reasonableness test subsumed by 5 the open and obvious doctrine.”).

2018Summit No. 23111, 2006-Ohio-5423 , 2006 WL 2959510 , ¶ 14 ("[C]onsideration of attendant circumstances is merely a generalized version of the reasonableness test subsumed by the open and obvious doctrine.").

2007Nageotte v. Cafaro Co. et al , 160 Ohio App.3d 702 , 710 , 2005-Ohio 2098 , ¶ 28 , citing Armstrong , 2003-Ohio-2573 , ¶ 5 . {¶ 9} The evidence submitted clearly demonstrates the trial court correctly applied the open and obvious doctrine.

2007She was carrying her mail satchel and a handful of mail, and testified that she did not know exactly where she slipped because she was not looking directly downward as she walked. {¶ 12} As appellant recognizes, the open and obvious doctrine removes a landowner's duty of care to business invitees concerning "known conditions that could have been avoided by individuals if they had taken proper precautionary measures, such as paying attention to where they were walking." Nageotte v. Cafaro Co. , 160 Ohio App.3d 702 , 2005-Ohio-2098 , ¶ 28, citing Demock v. D.C Entertainment Catering, Inc. , 6th

2018Cuyahoga No. 89810, 2008-Ohio-3667, ¶ 29 , citing McGuire v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 118 Ohio App.3d 494, 498 , 693 N.E.2d 807 (1st Dist.1996). 6. {¶ 15} Mrs. Caruso argues that summary judgment was inappropriate because reasonable minds could reach different conclusions as to whether attendant circumstances preclude the application of the open-and-obvious doctrine.

2018Cuyahoga No. 89810, 2008-Ohio-3667, ¶ 29 , citing McGuire v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 118 Ohio App.3d 494, 498 , 693 N.E.2d 807 (1st Dist.1996). 6. {¶ 15} Mrs. Caruso argues that summary judgment was inappropriate because reasonable minds could reach different conclusions as to whether attendant circumstances preclude the application of the open-and-obvious doctrine.

2025As such, the open-and-obvious test “‘properly considers the nature of the dangerous condition itself, as opposed to the nature of the plaintiff’s conduct in Case No. 24 MA 0094 –8– encountering it.’” Id., quoting Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 , 2003-Ohio-2573 , 788 N.E.2d 1088, ¶ 13 . . . . ...

2024Accordingly, the open-and-obvious test ‘properly considers the nature of the dangerous condition itself, as opposed to the nature of the plaintiff's conduct in 7. encountering it.’” Hissong v. Miller, 186 Ohio App.3d 345 , 2010–Ohio– 961, 927 N.E.2d 1161, ¶ 8 , quoting Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 , 2003-Ohio-2573 , 788 N.E.2d 1088, ¶ 13 .

2018Common-Law Negligence {¶ 23} "It is fundamental that in order to establish a cause of action for negligence, the plaintiff must show (1) the existence of a duty, (2) a breach of duty, and (3) an injury proximately resulting therefrom." Armstrong v. Best Buy Co. , 99 Ohio St.3d 79 , 2003-Ohio-2573 , 788 N.E.2d 1088 , ¶ 8, citing Menifee v. Ohio Welding Prods., Inc. , 15 Ohio St.3d 75 , 77, 472 N.E.2d 707 (1984). {¶ 24} "The open-and-obvious doctrine remains viable in Ohio." Armstrong at syllabus (analyzing open-and-obvious doctrine under the common-law duty to warn invitees of latent or hidden

2018Common-Law Negligence {¶ 23} "It is fundamental that in order to establish a cause of action for negligence, the plaintiff must show (1) the existence of a duty, (2) a breach of duty, and (3) an injury proximately resulting therefrom." Armstrong v. Best Buy Co. , 99 Ohio St.3d 79 , 2003-Ohio-2573 , 788 N.E.2d 1088 , ¶ 8, citing Menifee v. Ohio Welding Prods., Inc. , 15 Ohio St.3d 75 , 77, 472 N.E.2d 707 (1984). {¶ 24} "The open-and-obvious doctrine remains viable in Ohio." Armstrong at syllabus (analyzing open-and-obvious doctrine under the common-law duty to warn invitees of latent or hidden

2014Parsons v. Lawson Co., 57 Ohio App.3d 49 , 566 N.E.2d 698 (5th Dist.1989). {¶10} The Supreme Court of Ohio recognized in Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79, 82 , 2003-Ohio-2573 , 788 N.E.2d 1088 , that the open-and-obvious doctrine relates to the threshold issue of duty in a negligence action.

2014Parsons v. Lawson Co., 57 Ohio App.3d 49 , 566 N.E.2d 698 (5th Dist.1989). {¶10} The Supreme Court of Ohio recognized in Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 99 Ohio St.3d 79, 82 , 2003-Ohio-2573 , 788 N.E.2d 1088 , that the open-and-obvious doctrine relates to the threshold issue of duty in a negligence action.

2024However, “[t]o serve as an exception to the open and obvious doctrine, an attendant circumstance must be ‘so abnormal that it unreasonably increased the normal risk of a harmful result or reduced the degree of care an ordinary person would exercise.’” Shipman, 2014-Ohio-5092, at ¶ 29 , quoting Mayle v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist.

2023However, “[t]o serve as an exception to the open and obvious doctrine, an attendant circumstance must be ‘so abnormal that it unreasonably increased the normal risk of a harmful result or reduced the degree of care an ordinary person would exercise.’” Shipman, 2014-Ohio-5092, at ¶ 29 , quoting Mayle v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist.

2024See also Simmons, 2005-Ohio-6957 (finding the open and obvious doctrine inapplicable as there was a genuine issue of dispute whether the invitee was injured by the active negligence of another employee moving a dock plate); Wulf at ¶ 23 (finding the open and obvious doctrine did not apply when a waitress backed into the plaintiff while carrying a food tray). {¶ 40} Interestingly, Ohio courts have applied the open and obvious doctrine, depending on the facts, in cases involving falling merchandise.

2015Pacific Ent., L.L.C., 164 Ohio App.3d 763 , 2005-Ohio-6957 , 843 N.E.2d 1271, ¶ 21 (10th Dist.), citing Sidle v. Humphrey, 13 Ohio St.2d 45 , 233 N.E.2d 589 (1968). {¶ 7} In Black v. Discount Drug Mart, Inc., 6th Dist.

2018The Hueners counter that the open and obvious doctrine applies, which relieved them of any duty they might have owed to Levy. {¶ 15} To prove a claim for negligence, “the plaintiff must show (1) the existence of a duty, (2) a breach of that duty, and (3) an injury proximately resulting from the breach.” Robinson v. Bates, 112 Ohio St.3d 17 , 2006-Ohio-6362 , 857 N.E.2d 1195, ¶ 21 , citing Menifee v. Ohio Welding Prods., Inc., 15 Ohio St.3d 75, 77 , 472 N.E.2d 707 (1984). {¶ 16} The existence of a duty is a matter of law for the court to determine.

2018The Hueners counter that the open and obvious doctrine applies, which relieved them of any duty they might have owed to Levy. {¶ 15} To prove a claim for negligence, “the plaintiff must show (1) the existence of a duty, (2) a breach of that duty, and (3) an injury proximately resulting from the breach.” Robinson v. Bates, 112 Ohio St.3d 17 , 2006-Ohio-6362 , 857 N.E.2d 1195, ¶ 21 , citing Menifee v. Ohio Welding Prods., Inc., 15 Ohio St.3d 75, 77 , 472 N.E.2d 707 (1984). {¶ 16} The existence of a duty is a matter of law for the court to determine.

2026“Under this rule, courts have applied the open and obvious doctrine and denied recovery where a plaintiff seeks to recover against a property owner for injuries sustained as a result of stepping into darkness and sustaining injuries as a result of another object or danger.” Id., citing Rezac v. Cuyahoga Falls Concerts, Inc., 2007-Ohio-703 (9th Dist.); Leonard v. Modene & Assocs., Inc., 2006-Ohio-5471 (6th Dist.).

2017“When applicable * * *, the open-and-obvious doctrine * * * acts as a complete bar to any negligence claims.” Id. {¶40} Darkness has been repeatedly recognized as an open and obvious hazard. “‘Darkness’ is always a warning of danger, and for one’s own protection it may not be disregarded.” Jeswald v. Hutt, 15 Ohio St.2d 224 , 239 N.E.2d 37 (1968), paragraph three of the syllabus.

2026“When applicable, however, the open-and- obvious doctrine obviates the duty to warn and acts as a complete bar to any negligence claims.” Id., citing id.

2026“When applicable, however, the open-and- obvious doctrine obviates the duty to warn and acts as a complete bar to any negligence claims.” Id., citing id.

2025The Middletons timely noticed an appeal from this entry. {¶4} In their two assigned errors, the Middletons argue: [1.] The trial court erred in granting Clarky’s motion for summary judgment when evidence was presented which clearly demonstrated that the trial court misapplied the open and obvious doctrine in a situation where plaintiff was rounding a corner at the end of an aisle. [2.] The trial court erred in granting Clarky’s motion for summary judgment when evidence was presented which clearly demonstrated that Terri Middleton did not receive advance warning of the danger from her husband o

2023Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 105 , 671 N.E.2d 241 (1996).

2010“This duty [also] includes a responsibility to warn invitees of latent or concealed defects of which the owner has, or should have, knowledge.” Zuzan v. Shutrump, 155 Ohio App.3d 589 , 2003-Ohio-7285 , 802 N.E.2d 683, ¶6 ; Scheibel v. Lipton (1951), 156 Ohio St. 308 , 323, 102 N.E.2d 453 . {¶14} Liability only attaches when an owner has “superior knowledge of the particular danger which caused the injury” as an “invitee may not reasonably be expected to protect himself from a risk he cannot fully appreciate.” LaCourse v. Fleitz (1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 209, 210 , 503 N.E.2d 159 . {¶15} The Church

2010“This duty [also] includes a responsibility to warn invitees of latent or concealed defects of which the owner has, or should have, knowledge.” Zuzan v. Shutrump, 155 Ohio App.3d 589 , 2003-Ohio-7285 , 802 N.E.2d 683, ¶6 ; Scheibel v. Lipton (1951), 156 Ohio St. 308 , 323, 102 N.E.2d 453 . {¶14} Liability only attaches when an owner has “superior knowledge of the particular danger which caused the injury” as an “invitee may not reasonably be expected to protect himself from a risk he cannot fully appreciate.” LaCourse v. Fleitz (1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 209, 210 , 503 N.E.2d 159 . {¶15} The Church

2025“Ohio adheres to the common-law classifications of invitee, licensee, and trespasser in cases of premises liability.” Gladon v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Auth., 75 Ohio St.3d 312, 315 (1996). “[T]he status of the person who enters upon the land of another (i.e., trespasser, licensee, or invitee) continues to define the scope of the legal duty that the landowner owes the entrant.” Id. {¶ 27} The open-and-obvious doctrine relates to the threshold issue of duty.

2025“Ohio adheres to the common-law classifications of invitee, licensee, and trespasser in cases of premises liability.” Gladon v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Auth., 75 Ohio St.3d 312, 315 (1996). “[T]he status of the person who enters upon the land of another (i.e., trespasser, licensee, or invitee) continues to define the scope of the legal duty that the landowner owes the entrant.” Id. {¶ 27} The open-and-obvious doctrine relates to the threshold issue of duty.