Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Jones v. H. T. Enterprises
Citations: 623 N.E.2d 1329; 88 Ohio App. 3d 384; 1993 Ohio App. LEXIS 3208Docket: No. 15864.
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals; June 23, 1993; Ohio; State Appellate Court
An appeal has been made by a plaintiff in a personal injury case against a decision from the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, where the plaintiff, a business invitee, sustained injuries after falling on gravel on a walkway while leaving a craft store. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, dismissing the plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff raised three errors in her appeal: 1. The trial court wrongly determined that the walkway was not classified as a stairway under the Ohio Building Code. 2. The court incorrectly ruled that the premises were not unreasonably dangerous, despite an engineer's affidavit asserting negligent design of the walkway. 3. The court erroneously concluded that the plaintiff could not recover damages without evidence of the defendants' knowledge of the unsafe condition, despite her claim being based on negligent design. The appellate court overruled these assignments of error and affirmed the trial court's decision. The case's factual background details that on April 27, 1991, the plaintiff and her daughter parked in a gravel lot near the craft store, which is positioned on a higher elevation. They accessed the store via a concrete walkway that included two risers and was bordered by wooden posts to prevent parking encroachment. After their visit, the plaintiff slipped on gravel while descending the riser closest to their parked car, resulting in serious injuries. The plaintiff filed her lawsuit on December 2, 1991, against the store and property owner, but after discovery, the trial court granted summary judgment on grounds of lack of evidence regarding the defendants' knowledge of any danger and the commonality of gravel on such walkways. The plaintiff subsequently appealed the dismissal. Plaintiff's first assignment of error contends that the trial court erred by determining that the concrete walkway where she fell was not classified as a "stairway" under the Ohio Building Code. The plaintiff argues that the walkway is a stairway that violates several code provisions, including the lack of an adequate handrail. However, the code defines a "stairway" as consisting of one or more "flights of stairs," with a flight requiring at least three risers. The walkway in question has only two risers, thus it does not meet the definition of a stairway, leading to the overruling of this assignment of error. In her second assignment of error, the plaintiff argues that the trial court incorrectly found the walkway was not unreasonably dangerous, asserting that an expert engineer's affidavit highlighted several code violations that could create a material issue of fact. The expert identified three concerns: the absence of a handrail, the height of the riser being seven and one-half inches, and the presence of only two risers. The court found that the absence of handrails was not a violation since the walkway is not a stairway. The riser height was permissible under the code at the time of installation. Furthermore, the code does not prohibit configurations with one or two risers; such configurations simply do not qualify as stairways. Lastly, the expert's belief that the walkway's proximity to a gravel parking lot created an unsafe condition was noted, emphasizing that debris accumulation could obscure visibility of the step, posing a danger to users. However, this assertion does not establish a violation of the building code. The plaintiff, as an invitee on the defendant's premises, was owed a duty of ordinary care for her safety, but the defendants were not insurers of that safety. Their obligation included maintaining the premises in a reasonably safe condition and warning invitees of hidden dangers they knew or should have known. Evidence presented indicated that the walkway had occasional gravel from the parking lot, but the owner testified that such occurrences were infrequent and did not pose a problem, as no complaints had been made by the numerous customers. The plaintiff's expert suggested the walkway's design could lead to gravel accumulation, yet no evidence was provided to demonstrate that such accumulation was frequent or hazardous enough for the defendants to be aware of it. The court found that minor imperfections, like a few pieces of gravel, are expected and do not create liability. The presence of gravel on the walkway was deemed a minor imperfection that could not reasonably be considered unreasonably dangerous. The trial court ruled that no reasonable jury could find the walkway to be unreasonably dangerous, emphasizing that liability cannot extend to trivial conditions. Furthermore, the court noted that while the determination of unreasonably dangerous conditions is typically a factual question for a jury, it should not be presented to a jury if reasonable minds cannot arrive at a conclusion of danger. The court referenced previous cases that shaped this legal reasoning, affirming its decision based on established legal principles. The trial court properly disregarded a portion of the plaintiff's expert affidavit that claimed the plaintiff "would not reasonably expect to encounter" gravel on the walkway, as it did not meet the standard set by Civ.R. 56(E) requiring affidavits to be based on personal knowledge and to present facts admissible in evidence. The expert's statement was deemed conclusory and insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment on valid grounds. In addressing the plaintiff's third assignment of error, the court found that the plaintiff could not recover without evidence that the defendants were aware of the alleged unsafe condition, especially since her claim was based on negligent design. The defendants were not responsible for the walkway's design, as it was installed by a prior owner. Furthermore, the court noted that the presence of gravel did not constitute an unreasonable danger, and that if a defect is trivial or commonly encountered, the question of notice becomes irrelevant. Therefore, the plaintiff's third assignment of error was also overruled. The trial court's decision was affirmed, with both judges concurring.