Summary
This Ohio appellate court reviewed a trial court's grant of summary judgment in a premises liability action brought by a guest whose husband fell on unusually high steps at a motel. The court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that the stair defect and lack of a handrail were open and obvious hazards that relieved the defendants of a duty to warn. Additionally, the court held that violations of the Ohio Basic Building Code do not automatically preclude the application of the open and obvious doctrine.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the stair condition was an open and obvious danger that negates a duty to warn
- Whether violations of the Ohio Basic Building Code create a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment
- Whether summary judgment was appropriate under Civ.R. 56
Holdings
- The stairs presented an open and obvious danger; therefore, the premises owner owed no duty to warn the invitees.
- OBBC violations do not, by themselves, preclude the application of the open and obvious doctrine and therefore do not bar summary judgment.
Key quotations
“Therefore, when a danger is open and obvious, a premises owner owes no duty of care to individuals lawfully on the premises.” (at 22)
“We agree with those courts that hold an OBBC violation does not negate application of the open and obvious doctrine.” (at 14)
Factual background
The Langs stopped at the Holly Hill Motel in 1999. The motel assigned them a room requiring two steps to reach. Albert Lang, who used an oxygen tank, fell on the second step and broke his hip, later dying of respiratory failure. The plaintiff sued the motel and the builder for negligence.
Procedural history
The trial court granted summary judgment to Holly Hill Motel and Rodney McCorkle, finding the plaintiff could not identify the cause of the fall. The appellate court reversed and remanded, then on remand affirmed the trial court’s judgment.