Dulik v. K-Mart Discount Stores, Inc.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Dulik v. K-Mart Discount Stores, Inc.

566 N.E.2d 710, 57 Ohio App. 3d 61

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 3, 1989

Docket56918

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 566 N.E.2d 710 (Dulik v. K-Mart Discount Stores, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dulik v. K-Mart Discount Stores, Inc., 566 N.E.2d 710, 57 Ohio App. 3d 61 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This cause came on to be heard upon the accelerated calendar pursuant to App. R. 11.1 and Local App. R. 25, the record from the Cuya-hoga County Court of Common Pleas, the briefs and the oral arguments of counsel. Appellant appeals from the trial court’s granting of defendant-appellee’s motion for summary judgment. The basis of the trial court’s ruling was that appellee did not breach any duty owed to the appellant. Apparently, appellant poked herself in the eye with the price tag assemblage which was attached to the sunglasses-by a plastic hoop while she was trying them on at the appellant’s store. This tag was hanging from the bridge which connects the two lenses. Appellant admitted to seeing the price tag prior to putting on the sunglasses.

We find that, as a matter of law, appellee had no duty to protect the appellant herein due to the open and obvious nature of the apparent danger. Frajt v. Goodwill Industries of Greater Cleveland (1986), 33 Ohio App. 3d 92, 514 N.E. 2d 719.

Judgment affirmed.

Matia, P.J., Nahra and Sweeney, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

This cause came on to be heard upon the accelerated calendar pursuant to App. R. 11.1 and Local App. R. 25, the record from the Cuya-hoga County Court of Common Pleas, the briefs and the oral arguments of counsel. Appellant appeals from the trial court’s granting of defendant-appellee’s motion for summary judgment. The basis of the trial court’s ruling was that appellee did not breach any duty owed to the appellant. Apparently, appellant poked herself in the eye with the price tag assemblage which was attached to the sunglasses-by a plastic hoop while she was trying them on at the appellant’s store. This tag was hanging from the bridge which connects the two lenses. Appellant admitted to seeing the price tag prior to putting on the sunglasses.

We find that, as a matter of law, appellee had no duty to protect the appellant herein due to the open and obvious nature of the apparent danger. Frajt v. Goodwill Industries of Greater Cleveland (1986), 33 Ohio App. 3d 92, 514 N.E. 2d 719.

Judgment affirmed.

Matia, P.J., Nahra and Sweeney, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

566 N.E.2d 710, 57 Ohio App. 3d 61, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dulik-v-k-mart-discount-stores-inc-ohioctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack