Opinion

Moxley v. Ohio Expositions Comm.

  • 2010 Ohio 5684
Court
Ohio Court of Claims
Filed
Oct 12, 2010
Status
Published
On the bench
Weaver
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 32.2%

The opinion

[Cite as Moxley v. Ohio Expositions Comm., 2010-Ohio-5684.]

Court of Claims of Ohio

The Ohio Judicial Center

65 South Front Street, Third Floor

Columbus, OH 43215

614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263

www.cco.state.oh.us

MICHELLE MOXLEY

Plaintiff

v.

OHIO EXPOSITIONS COMMISSION,

et al.

Defendants

Case No. 2008-08841

Judge Clark B. Weaver Sr.

DECISION

{¶ 1} Plaintiff brought this action alleging negligence against defendants, the

Ohio Expositions Commission (OEC) and the Ohio Department of Natural Resources

(ODNR). The issues of liability and damages were bifurcated and the case proceeded

to trial on the issue of liability.

{¶ 2} Plaintiff alleges that on August 7, 2006, she suffered personal injury when

she fell while walking on an asphalt path in the ODNR exhibit of the Ohio State

Fairgrounds. According to plaintiff, she was carrying her grandchild on her hip while

she was walking beside her daughter. She asserted that she felt her foot step into a

hole and that, as she started to fall, her daughter grabbed the child from her arms in

order to prevent the child from being injured. Plaintiff stated that her foot began to swell

immediately and that she was unable to get up off the ground. After other persons

helped her up, plaintiff was transported by cart to a first aid station nearby. Plaintiff

maintains that defendants are liable for failure to warn her of this inherently dangerous

condition and to properly maintain and repair the walkway.

{¶ 3} Defendants deny liability and contend that the defect in the walkway

surface was a minor depression that was open, obvious, and visible to pedestrians. As

such, defendants contend that they had no duty to warn plaintiff of the condition and

that plaintiff suffered an injury due to her own negligence in failing to observe where she

was walking.

{¶ 4} “In premises liability situations, the duty owed by a landowner to

individuals visiting the property is determined by the relationship between the parties.”

Chovan v. Dehoff Agency, Inc., Stark App. No. 2009 CA 00114, 2010-Ohio-1646, ¶19,

citing Light v. Ohio University (1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 66. “[B]usiness invitees are

persons who come upon the premises of another, by invitation, express or implied, for

some purpose which is beneficial to the owner.” Light at 68. Based on plaintiff’s status

as an invitee, the court finds that defendants owed her a duty to exercise reasonable

care in keeping the premises in a safe condition and warning her of any latent or

concealed dangers which defendants had knowledge. Perry v. Eastgreen Realty

Company (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 51, 52-53; Presley v. Norwood (1973), 36 Ohio St.2d

29, 31; Sweet v. Clare-Mar Corp., Inc. (1987), 38 Ohio App.3d 6.

{¶ 5} However, a property owner is under no duty to protect an invitee from

dangers known by the invitee or conditions that are so obvious and apparent to the

invitee that she should reasonably be expected to discover and protect against them

herself. Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 203, 203-204; Sidle v.

Humphrey (1968), 13 Ohio St.2d 45, paragraph one of the syllabus; Brinkman v. Ross,

68 Ohio St.3d 82, 84, 1993-Ohio-72.

{¶ 6} Plaintiff testified that although it was a sunny day, several portions of the

walkway were shaded due to the numerous leafy trees lining the walkway. According to

plaintiff, she and her family had earlier walked this same path in the opposite direction

heading to the fishing pond. She was leaving the ODNR area on the same path when

she fell. Plaintiff claimed that the walkway was crowded and that she was not able to

see ahead due to the volume of pedestrians in front of her. On cross-examination,

plaintiff admitted that had she looked down while she was walking, she would have

been able to see the walkway in front of her, as the nearest persons were approximately

an arm’s length ahead of her. According to plaintiff, she could not estimate how deep

the hole was, and no one from her group measured the depth of the hole that day.

{¶ 7} Laura Roth testified that she has worked for over ten years at the ODNR

exhibit at the fairgrounds, that ODNR is responsible for maintaining the grounds in this

area, and that during the state fair she inspects the walkways at least daily. She

described the area where plaintiff fell as a slight depression, not a “trip-hazard.”

{¶ 8} Jeff Moseley testified that he had been employed as a state highway

patrolman in 2006 and that he had worked 12-hour shifts at the fairgrounds that year.

He recalled that he first encountered plaintiff when he was called to the first aid station

and that he completed a report concerning her fall. Trooper Moseley related that he

then went to view the area where she had fallen and that he located a slight depression

in the asphalt that he described as approximately 3/4 to one inch in depth. On cross-

examination, Moseley stated that he thoroughly checked the area and that he did not

see anything that he considered to be a hazard.

{¶ 9} In Kimball v. Cincinnati (1953), 160 Ohio St. 370, the Supreme Court of

Ohio stated that a minor difference in elevation in a sidewalk is a “slight defect

commonly found in sidewalks.” Id. at the syllabus. In Cash v. Cincinnati (1981), 66

Ohio St.2d 319, 324; however, the Supreme Court of Ohio cautioned that “all the

attendant circumstances should be considered in determining liability for defects in the

public walkway occasioning the injuries.”

{¶ 10} Defendant submitted photographs of the portion of the sidewalk where

plaintiff fell. The photographs depict a shallow saucer-shaped depression in the

asphalt. (Defendant’s Exhibits J, K.) The photographs show areas that are sunlit and

others that are shaded, the surface is not unusual and is of a type regularly encountered

by pedestrians. Inasmuch as plaintiff was not looking down at the path when she fell,

the lighting did not create a greater risk than normal. In addition, although there were

other persons ahead of her, the court finds that the presence of other pedestrians did

not cause the type of attendant circumstances as contemplated in the Cash case. See

Howard v. Beachwood Place, Cuyahoga App. No. 85383, 2005-Ohio-3414.

{¶ 11} The mere fact that plaintiff tripped does not establish any negligence on

the part of defendant. Green v. Castronova (1966), 9 Ohio App.2d 156, 161; Kimbro v.

Konni’s Supermarket, Inc. (June 27, 1996), Cuyahoga App. No. 69666; Costidakis v.

Park Corporation (Sept. 1, 1994), Cuyahoga App. No. 66167. A property owner “is

generally not liable for minor defects in sidewalks and walkways because these are

commonly encountered and pedestrians should expect such minor defects.” Blain v.

Cigna Corp., Franklin App. 02AP-1442, 2003-Ohio-4022, ¶8, citing Stockhauser v.

Archdiocese of Cincinnati (1994), 97 Ohio App.3d 29, 32.

{¶ 12} Based on the testimony and evidence presented, the court concludes that

the depression in the sidewalk was minor and that plaintiff failed to prove her fall was

caused by any hidden or hazardous condition on defendants’ premises. Inasmuch as

the court finds that the condition was not an unreasonable danger, defendants owed no

duty to repair it or warn pedestrians. See Denny v. State Univ. (Aug. 21, 1997), Franklin

App. No. 97API02-278. Accordingly, judgment shall be rendered in favor of defendants.

Court of Claims of Ohio

The Ohio Judicial Center

65 South Front Street, Third Floor

Columbus, OH 43215

614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263

www.cco.state.oh.us

MICHELLE MOXLEY

Plaintiff

v.

OHIO EXPOSITIONS COMMISSION,

et al.

Defendants

Case No. 2008-08841

Judge Clark B. Weaver Sr.

JUDGMENT ENTRY

This case was tried to the court on the issue of liability. The court has

considered the evidence and for the reasons set forth in the decision filed concurrently

herewith, judgment is rendered in favor of defendants. Court costs are assessed

against plaintiff. The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its

date of entry upon the journal.

_____________________________________

CLARK B. WEAVER SR.

Judge

cc:

Amy S. Brown Clarence T. Gordon II

John P. Reichley 394 West Second Avenue

Assistant Attorneys General Columbus, Ohio 43201-3312

150 East Gay Street, 18th Floor

Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130

SJM/mdw/cmd

Filed October 12, 2010

To S.C. reporter November 18, 2010

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.