Summary
The Ohio Supreme Court considered whether the trial court properly granted judgment for the defendant at the close of the plaintiff’s opening statement in a premises-liability action. The court held that the plaintiff knowingly encountered an icy and snow-covered driveway defect, voluntarily assumed the risk, and could not recover because the defendant lacked superior knowledge of the danger. The court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s judgment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court properly granted the defendant's motion for judgment at the close of the plaintiffs' opening statement.
- Whether a plaintiff who knowingly and voluntarily exposes herself to a dangerous condition on a defendant's premises assumes the risk and is barred from recovering.
- Whether the doctrines of assumption of risk and contributory negligence are distinct, although they may overlap.
Holdings
- The trial court properly entered judgment for the defendant because the facts stated in the pleadings and opening statement conclusively established that the plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily assumed the risk.
- The defendant was not liable for the natural accumulation of ice and snow because the plaintiff had knowledge of the danger equal or superior to that of the defendant.
- Assumption of risk and contributory negligence are distinct doctrines: assumption of risk concerns knowledge of the danger and intelligent, voluntary acquiescence, while contributory negligence concerns failure to exercise reasonable care.
Key quotations
“To the extent that a business invitee and the owner of the premises have equal knowledge of the usual dangers resulting solely from natural accumulations of ice and snow, the latter cannot be charged with actionable negligence with regard to such dangers.” (35 Ohio St. 2d at 184)
“Except as stated in Subsection (2), a plaintiff who fully understands a risk of harm to himself or his things caused by the defendant’s conduct or by the condition of the defendant’s land or chattels, and ioho nevertheless voluntarily chooses to enter or remain, or to permit his things to enter or remain within the area of that risk, under circumstances that manifest his willingness to accept it, is not entitled to recover for harm within that risk.” (35 Ohio St. 2d at 185)
“Assumption of the risk requires three elements: One must have full knowledge of a condition; such condition must be patently dangerous to him; and he must voluntarily expose himself to the hazard created.” (35 Ohio St. 2d at 185)
Factual background
Mrs. DeAmiches walked down a driveway that was icy and covered with snow, while aware of the snow and the location of a hole in the concrete driveway. She attempted to walk around the hole, but her foot slipped on ice beneath the snow and her heel entered the hole, causing her to lose balance and sustain injuries. The opening statement indicated that she knowingly chose a path near and around the known hazard.
Procedural history
The pleadings and opening statement alleged that Mrs. DeAmiches was injured when she attempted to walk around a hole in an icy, snow-covered driveway. The trial court entered judgment for the defendant at the close of the plaintiffs' opening statement. Although the Court of Appeals reversed, the Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the Court of Appeals and upheld the trial court's judgment.