# Manning v. City of Avon Lake, 06ca008958 (3-10-2008)

> Ohio Court of Appeals · March 10, 2008 · 2008 Ohio 1000

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3706059

## Case

- **Full name:** Virginia Manning v. City of Avon Lake
- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** March 10, 2008
- **Citations:** 2008 Ohio 1000
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Concurrence
- **Judges:** DICKINSON, Judge.
- **Cited by:** 3 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3706059

## Opinion text

{¶ 28} I concur in the judgment of the majority to reverse the trial court's decision. However, I disagree with the majority's analysis of the open and obvious doctrine. In my dissent in Moody v. Coshocton Cty. , 9th Dist. No. 05CA0059, 2006-Ohio-3751 , at ¶ 23 , I stated that the open and obvious "doctrine *Page 15
is inapplicable to cases involving the statutory duty of a political subdivision under R.C. 2744.02 (B)(3) to maintain its roads, sidewalks, etc. free from nuisance." Accordingly, I would not apply this doctrine to a matter such as this one involving a slip and fall on a public sidewalk.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3706059. Public record. Not legal advice.