Glenn v. Wal-Mart Stores, Unpublished Decision (10-31-2003)

Ohio Court of Appeals

Glenn v. Wal-Mart Stores, Unpublished Decision (10-31-2003)

2003 Ohio 5833

Ohio Court of Appeals·Decided October 31, 2003·No. Appeal No. C-030300, Trial No. A-0204423.·Unpublished

Opinion

DECISION. {¶ 1} Plaintiff-Appellant Johnnie Glenn slipped and fell on a patch of what appeared to be grease or oil in defendant-appellee Wal-Mart's parking lot. The trial court granted summary judgment against Glenn. We affirm.

{¶ 2} The trial court held that there was no genuine issue of material fact. Glenn could not demonstrate either that the substance was placed there by Wal-Mart, or that Wal-Mart had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard. The oil could have come from a passing vehicle that had stopped to pick up a passenger a few minutes before. Or not. But it was Glenn's burden to prove, and she could not.

{¶ 3} In a well-written brief, Glenn relies on McClorey v.Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections,¹ which held that the occupier of premises "had a duty to inspect and warn invitees of dangers in the entranceway to the building." Strangely, Wal-Mart makes no attempt to distinguish that case — it is not even mentioned in its brief. While McClorey provides for a heightened duty of care for business invitors to police an entranceway, Glenn fell in the parking area, albeit about 18 inches from the curb. We do not extend McClorey to parking areas.

{¶ 4} Additionally, Wal-Mart has moved, under App.R. 23, for sanctions against Glenn for filing a frivolous appeal. We decline to consider the appeal frivolous. Though we are somewhat inclined to hold the motion for sanctions to be frivolous, we decline that also.

{¶ 5} We affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment and overrule Wal-Mart's motion for sanctions.

Judgment affirmed.

Gorman, P.J., and Winkler, J., concur.

¹ (1994), 130 Ohio App.3d 621, 720 N.E.2d 954.

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

DECISION. {¶ 1} Plaintiff-Appellant Johnnie Glenn slipped and fell on a patch of what appeared to be grease or oil in defendant-appellee Wal-Mart's parking lot. The trial court granted summary judgment against Glenn. We affirm.

{¶ 2} The trial court held that there was no genuine issue of material fact. Glenn could not demonstrate either that the substance was placed there by Wal-Mart, or that Wal-Mart had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard. The oil could have come from a passing vehicle that had stopped to pick up a passenger a few minutes before. Or not. But it was Glenn's burden to prove, and she could not.

{¶ 3} In a well-written brief, Glenn relies on McClorey v.Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections,¹ which held that the occupier of premises "had a duty to inspect and warn invitees of dangers in the entranceway to the building." Strangely, Wal-Mart makes no attempt to distinguish that case — it is not even mentioned in its brief. While McClorey provides for a heightened duty of care for business invitors to police an entranceway, Glenn fell in the parking area, albeit about 18 inches from the curb. We do not extend McClorey to parking areas.

{¶ 4} Additionally, Wal-Mart has moved, under App.R. 23, for sanctions against Glenn for filing a frivolous appeal. We decline to consider the appeal frivolous. Though we are somewhat inclined to hold the motion for sanctions to be frivolous, we decline that also.

{¶ 5} We affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment and overrule Wal-Mart's motion for sanctions.

Judgment affirmed.

Gorman, P.J., and Winkler, J., concur.

¹ (1994), 130 Ohio App.3d 621, 720 N.E.2d 954.

Glenn v. Wal-Mart Stores, Unpublished Decision (10-31-2003), 2003 Ohio 5833 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

2003 Ohio 5833 (Glenn v. Wal-Mart Stores, Unpublished Decision (10-31-2003)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related