[Cite as Kraft v. Johnny Biggs Mansfield, L.L.C., 2012-Ohio-5502.]
COURT OF APPEALS RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
SHARON E. KRAFT, et al. JUDGES: Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P. J. Plaintiffs-Appellants Hon. John W. Wise, J. Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J. -vs- Case No. 2012 CA 0068 JOHNNY BIGGS MANSFIELD, LLC, et al.
Defendants-Appellees OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 11 CV 477
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: November 29, 2012
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiffs-Appellants For Defendants-Appellees
CURTIS J. SYBERT GARY A. PIPER MATTHEW S. GOFF BARAN, PIPER, TARKOWSKY, SCHERNER & SYBERT, LLC & FITZGERALD CO. LPA 153 South Liberty Street 3 North Main Street, Suite 500 Powell, Ohio 43065 Mansfield, Ohio 44902 Richland County, Case No. 2012 CA 0068 2
Wise, J.
{¶1} Plaintiffs-Appellants Sharon E. Kraft and John Kraft appeal the decision of
the Court of Common Pleas, Richland County, which granted summary judgment in
favor of Defendants-Appellees Johnny Biggs Mansfield, LLC, R & D Partnership, LLP,
CFC Restaurant Group, Inc., and CFC Management Company, Inc., in a trip and fall
lawsuit. The relevant facts leading to this appeal are as follows.
{¶2} On November 28, 2010, Appellants Sharon and John Kraft arrived for a
planned Sunday afternoon meal with some relatives at Johnny Biggs Restaurant in
Ontario, Ohio. Appellants drove into a space in the west-side parking lot, as the south-
side parking lot they had used on previous visits was full. Sharon, carrying a bag purse,
approached the restaurant entrance from the concrete walkway leading to the west
parking lot. She later testified she had not approached on the west walkway before that
time. As she walked toward the west entrance, she observed other patrons entering or
exiting via both the west and south entrances. Other patrons were standing on the
walkway.
{¶3} As Sharon approached within a few steps of the west entrance, her left
foot struck a raised portion of the concrete created by a slight height difference between
two sidewalk sections. As a result, Sharon fell and struck her head on the walkway,
resulting in an orbital fracture, a nasal fracture, and facial contusions.
{¶4} On April 15, 2011, Appellants Sharon and John Kraft filed a civil lawsuit
against appellees in the Richland County Court of Common Pleas. Appellees each filed
separate answers to the complaint on May 25, 2011. Richland County, Case No. 2012 CA 0068 3
{¶5} On May 17, 2012, appellees filed a joint motion for summary judgment. On
June 11, 2012, appellants filed a memorandum in response, to which appellees replied
on June 25, 2012.
{¶6} On July 11, 2012, the trial court issued an entry granting summary
judgment in favor of appellees.
{¶7} On August 8, 2012, appellants filed a notice of appeal. This Court
subsequently placed the appeal on the accelerated calendar. Appellants herein raise
the following three Assignments of Error:
{¶8} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT
BASED UPON THE OPEN AND OBVIOUS DOCTRINE.
{¶9} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY USING THE INCORRECT LEGAL
STANDARD IN ITS FINDING THAT THE HAZARD WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AS A
MATTER OF LAW.
{¶10} “III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT
BASED ON A FINDING THAT PLAINTIFFS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT ANY
ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTED THAT WOULD PRECLUDE THE
APPLICATION OF THE OPEN AND OBVIOUS DOCTRINE.”
I.
{¶11} In their First Assignment of Error, appellants contend the trial court erred
in granting summary judgment in favor of appellees under the “open and obvious”
doctrine. We disagree.
{¶12} As an appellate court reviewing summary judgment issues, we must stand
in the shoes of the trial court and conduct our review on the same standard and Richland County, Case No. 2012 CA 0068 4
evidence as the trial court. Porter v. Ward, Richland App.No. 07 CA 33, 2007-Ohio-
5301, ¶ 34, citing Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc. (1987), 30 Ohio St.3d 35, 506
N.E.2d 212.
{¶13} Civ.R. 56(C) provides, in pertinent part:
{¶14} “Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of
evidence, and written stipulations of fact, if any, timely filed in the action, show that
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. * * * A summary judgment shall not be rendered unless it
appears from the evidence or stipulation, and only from the evidence or stipulation, that
reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the
party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that party being entitled
to have the evidence or stipulation construed most strongly in the party's favor. * * * ”
{¶15} Pursuant to the above rule, a trial court may not enter a summary
judgment if it appears a material fact is genuinely disputed. The party moving for
summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing the trial court of the basis for its
motion and identifying those portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of a
genuine issue of material fact. The moving party may not make a conclusory assertion
that the non-moving party has no evidence to prove its case. The moving party must
specifically point to some evidence which demonstrates the non-moving party cannot
support its claim. If the moving party satisfies this requirement, the burden shifts to the
non-moving party to set forth specific facts demonstrating there is a genuine issue of Richland County, Case No. 2012 CA 0068 5
material fact for trial. Vahila v. Hall, 77 Ohio St.3d 421, 429, 1997-Ohio-259, citing
Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 1996-Ohio-207.
{¶16} In Ohio, a business owner, “although not an insurer of the customer's
safety, owes business invitees a duty of ordinary care to maintain the premises in a
reasonably safe condition for their protection.” Centers v. Leisure Internatl., Inc. (1995),
105 Ohio App.3d 582, 584, 664 N.E.2d 969, citing Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy, Inc.
(1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 203, 18 OBR 267, 480 N.E.2d 474. When a danger is open and
obvious, a premises owner owes no duty of care to individuals lawfully on the premises.
See Campbell-Sutton v. DeLong, Licking App.No. 08 CA 18, 2008-Ohio-2771, ¶ 18,
citing Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., 99 Ohio St.3d 79, 788 N.E.2d 1088, 2003-Ohio-2573.
Open and obvious dangers are not concealed and are discoverable by ordinary
inspection. Aycock v. Sandy Valley Church of God, Tuscarawas App.No. 2006 AP 09
0054, 2008-Ohio-105, ¶ 23, citing Parsons v. Lawson Co. (1989), 57 Ohio App.3d 49,
50-51, 566 N.E.2d 698. The dangerous condition at issue does not actually have to be
observed by the claimant to be an open and obvious condition under the law. Id., citing
Lydic v. Lowe's Cos., Inc., Franklin App. No. 01AP-1432, 2002-Ohio-5001, ¶ 10. Rather,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as Kraft v. Johnny Biggs Mansfield, L.L.C., 2012-Ohio-5502.]
COURT OF APPEALS RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
SHARON E. KRAFT, et al. JUDGES: Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, P. J. Plaintiffs-Appellants Hon. John W. Wise, J. Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J. -vs- Case No. 2012 CA 0068 JOHNNY BIGGS MANSFIELD, LLC, et al.
Defendants-Appellees OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 11 CV 477
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: November 29, 2012
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiffs-Appellants For Defendants-Appellees
CURTIS J. SYBERT GARY A. PIPER MATTHEW S. GOFF BARAN, PIPER, TARKOWSKY, SCHERNER & SYBERT, LLC & FITZGERALD CO. LPA 153 South Liberty Street 3 North Main Street, Suite 500 Powell, Ohio 43065 Mansfield, Ohio 44902 Richland County, Case No. 2012 CA 0068 2
Wise, J.
{¶1} Plaintiffs-Appellants Sharon E. Kraft and John Kraft appeal the decision of
the Court of Common Pleas, Richland County, which granted summary judgment in
favor of Defendants-Appellees Johnny Biggs Mansfield, LLC, R & D Partnership, LLP,
CFC Restaurant Group, Inc., and CFC Management Company, Inc., in a trip and fall
lawsuit. The relevant facts leading to this appeal are as follows.
{¶2} On November 28, 2010, Appellants Sharon and John Kraft arrived for a
planned Sunday afternoon meal with some relatives at Johnny Biggs Restaurant in
Ontario, Ohio. Appellants drove into a space in the west-side parking lot, as the south-
side parking lot they had used on previous visits was full. Sharon, carrying a bag purse,
approached the restaurant entrance from the concrete walkway leading to the west
parking lot. She later testified she had not approached on the west walkway before that
time. As she walked toward the west entrance, she observed other patrons entering or
exiting via both the west and south entrances. Other patrons were standing on the
walkway.
{¶3} As Sharon approached within a few steps of the west entrance, her left
foot struck a raised portion of the concrete created by a slight height difference between
two sidewalk sections. As a result, Sharon fell and struck her head on the walkway,
resulting in an orbital fracture, a nasal fracture, and facial contusions.
{¶4} On April 15, 2011, Appellants Sharon and John Kraft filed a civil lawsuit
against appellees in the Richland County Court of Common Pleas. Appellees each filed
separate answers to the complaint on May 25, 2011. Richland County, Case No. 2012 CA 0068 3
{¶5} On May 17, 2012, appellees filed a joint motion for summary judgment. On
June 11, 2012, appellants filed a memorandum in response, to which appellees replied
on June 25, 2012.
{¶6} On July 11, 2012, the trial court issued an entry granting summary
judgment in favor of appellees.
{¶7} On August 8, 2012, appellants filed a notice of appeal. This Court
subsequently placed the appeal on the accelerated calendar. Appellants herein raise
the following three Assignments of Error:
{¶8} “I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT
BASED UPON THE OPEN AND OBVIOUS DOCTRINE.
{¶9} “II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY USING THE INCORRECT LEGAL
STANDARD IN ITS FINDING THAT THE HAZARD WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS AS A
MATTER OF LAW.
{¶10} “III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT
BASED ON A FINDING THAT PLAINTIFFS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT ANY
ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANCES EXISTED THAT WOULD PRECLUDE THE
APPLICATION OF THE OPEN AND OBVIOUS DOCTRINE.”
I.
{¶11} In their First Assignment of Error, appellants contend the trial court erred
in granting summary judgment in favor of appellees under the “open and obvious”
doctrine. We disagree.
{¶12} As an appellate court reviewing summary judgment issues, we must stand
in the shoes of the trial court and conduct our review on the same standard and Richland County, Case No. 2012 CA 0068 4
evidence as the trial court. Porter v. Ward, Richland App.No. 07 CA 33, 2007-Ohio-
5301, ¶ 34, citing Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc. (1987), 30 Ohio St.3d 35, 506
N.E.2d 212.
{¶13} Civ.R. 56(C) provides, in pertinent part:
{¶14} “Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings,
depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of
evidence, and written stipulations of fact, if any, timely filed in the action, show that
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. * * * A summary judgment shall not be rendered unless it
appears from the evidence or stipulation, and only from the evidence or stipulation, that
reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the
party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that party being entitled
to have the evidence or stipulation construed most strongly in the party's favor. * * * ”
{¶15} Pursuant to the above rule, a trial court may not enter a summary
judgment if it appears a material fact is genuinely disputed. The party moving for
summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing the trial court of the basis for its
motion and identifying those portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of a
genuine issue of material fact. The moving party may not make a conclusory assertion
that the non-moving party has no evidence to prove its case. The moving party must
specifically point to some evidence which demonstrates the non-moving party cannot
support its claim. If the moving party satisfies this requirement, the burden shifts to the
non-moving party to set forth specific facts demonstrating there is a genuine issue of Richland County, Case No. 2012 CA 0068 5
material fact for trial. Vahila v. Hall, 77 Ohio St.3d 421, 429, 1997-Ohio-259, citing
Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 1996-Ohio-207.
{¶16} In Ohio, a business owner, “although not an insurer of the customer's
safety, owes business invitees a duty of ordinary care to maintain the premises in a
reasonably safe condition for their protection.” Centers v. Leisure Internatl., Inc. (1995),
105 Ohio App.3d 582, 584, 664 N.E.2d 969, citing Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy, Inc.
(1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 203, 18 OBR 267, 480 N.E.2d 474. When a danger is open and
obvious, a premises owner owes no duty of care to individuals lawfully on the premises.
See Campbell-Sutton v. DeLong, Licking App.No. 08 CA 18, 2008-Ohio-2771, ¶ 18,
citing Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., 99 Ohio St.3d 79, 788 N.E.2d 1088, 2003-Ohio-2573.
Open and obvious dangers are not concealed and are discoverable by ordinary
inspection. Aycock v. Sandy Valley Church of God, Tuscarawas App.No. 2006 AP 09
0054, 2008-Ohio-105, ¶ 23, citing Parsons v. Lawson Co. (1989), 57 Ohio App.3d 49,
50-51, 566 N.E.2d 698. The dangerous condition at issue does not actually have to be
observed by the claimant to be an open and obvious condition under the law. Id., citing
Lydic v. Lowe's Cos., Inc., Franklin App. No. 01AP-1432, 2002-Ohio-5001, ¶ 10. Rather,
the determinative issue is whether the condition is observable. Id.
{¶17} Appellants in the case sub judice maintain that because of the proximity of
the raised concrete section to the restaurant entrance and the corresponding pedestrian
traffic, it would be unreasonable to expect invitees to discover the potential sidewalk
hazard. However, a review of the record indicates that the incident in question took
place on a sunny autumn afternoon and that the walkway was dry and free of leaves
and debris. See Sharon Kraft Depo. at 34-36, 54. Photograph Exhibits C1 – C5 in the Richland County, Case No. 2012 CA 0068 6
record indicate that there are at least several inches of flat, closely-cut grass or mulch
on either side of the sidewalk. Although there is a lamppost in the grassy area and
some nearby shrubbery, no shadows from such objects are cast on the spot where the
concrete joint is located. In her deposition, Sharon answered in the affirmative when
asked if she would have been able to see the raised portion of the concrete had she
looked down. Id. at 56-57.
{¶18} Accordingly, upon review, we find no error in the trial court's grant of
summary judgment in favor of appellees, based on the open and obvious nature of any
hazards associated with the concrete walkway at the restaurant’s entrance. We
therefore hold the evidence would demonstrate that appellants cannot support their
claim on the basic question of the open and obvious nature of the sidewalk hazard.
{¶19} Appellants’ First Assignment of Error is overruled.
II.
{¶20} In their Second Assignment of Error, appellants argue the trial court
erroneously used a subjective standard in awarding summary judgment to appellees.
We disagree.
{¶21} We note the trial court, in reaching its decision, found that the walkway’s
concrete “lip” was “so open and obvious that the defendants could reasonably expect
persons upon the premises, including plaintiff Sharon Kraft, to discover the condition
and take appropriate measures to protect themselves.” Summary Judgment Entry at 2.
As such, we are unpersuaded that the trial court improperly utilized a subjective
standard, rather than an objective, reasonable person standard to analyze the “open
and obvious” issue, as urged by appellants. Moreover, we review a summary judgment Richland County, Case No. 2012 CA 0068 7
de novo and without deference to the trial court's determination. See, e.g., Wachovia
Bank of Delaware, NA v. Jackson, Stark App.No. 2011CA00261, 2012-Ohio-4479, ¶ 15.
As such, we find further analysis of appellant’s claim in this regard to be unnecessary.
{¶22} Appellants’ Second Assignment of Error is overruled.
III.
{¶23} In their Third Assignment of Error, appellants maintain the trial court erred
in granting summary judgment upon its determination that no attendant circumstances
existed at the time of the trip and fall. We disagree.
{¶24} Attendant circumstances are factors that contribute to a fall and are
beyond the injured person's control. See Backus v. Giant Eagle, Inc. (1996), 115 Ohio
App.3d 155, 158, 684 N.E.2d 1273. They are also recognized as circumstances that
significantly enhance the danger of the defect or hazard and contribute to the injury.
Stockhauser v. Arch Diocese of Cincinnati (1994), 97 Ohio App.3d 29, 646 N.E.2d 198.
Attendant circumstances do not include the individual's activity at the moment of the fall,
unless the individual's attention was diverted by an unusual circumstance of the
property owner's making. McGuire v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (1996), 118 Ohio App.3d
494, 498, 693 N.E.2d 807.
{¶25} Appellants essentially contend that summary judgment was improper
where alleged attendant circumstances negated the application of the open and obvious
doctrine. They urge that these attendant circumstances consisted of (1) the proximity of
the raised sidewalk portion to the entrance and corresponding pedestrian traffic, (2)
alleged shadows on the sidewalk, and (3) Sharon’s carrying of a bag purse at her knee
level. Richland County, Case No. 2012 CA 0068 8
{¶26} However, upon review, we find no basis to reverse the granting of
summary judgment on any of the aforesaid grounds. Despite the fact that the restaurant
was “rather busy” with Sunday afternoon patrons, Sharon agreed in her deposition that
there was “normal traffic” of people coming in and out at the time. Sharon Kraft Depo. at
36, 55-56. Furthermore, we concur with appellees’ observation that the alleged
shadows did not cover the walkway area in question, and that certain daytime light
actually enhances the visibility of the height difference in the two concrete sections. See
Photograph Exhibits C1 – C5. Finally, while this Court has previously addressed an
attendant circumstances question related to a plaintiff carrying a pizza box, ostensibly
blocking her view of the ground (see Jacobsen v. Coon Restoration & Sealants, Inc.,
Stark App.No. 2011–CA–00001, 2011-Ohio-3563), we find such a scenario is
distinguishable from potential visual blockage of a walkway by a bag purse at knee
level. We hold none of these circumstances are so significant or unusual so as to rise
to the level of “attendant circumstances” as a matter of law.
{¶27} Appellants’ Third Assignment of Error is therefore overruled.
{¶28} For the reasons stated in the foregoing, the decision of the Court of
Common Pleas, Richland County, Ohio, is hereby affirmed.
By: Wise, J. Delaney, P. J., and Edwards, J., concur. ___________________________________
___________________________________
JUDGES JWW/d 1107 Richland County, Case No. 2012 CA 0068 9
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
SHARON E. KRAFT, et al. : : Plaintiffs-Appellants : : -vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY : JOHNNY BIGGS MANSFIELD, LLC, et al. : : Defendants-Appellees : Case No. 2012 CA 0068
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the
judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Richland County, Ohio, is affirmed.
Costs assessed to appellant.
JUDGES