 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Boxerbaum v. Marc Glassman7/30/1998
PER CURIAM
JUDGMENT Affirmed.
This cause came on to be heard upon the accelerated calender pursuant to App.R. 11.1 and Loc. App.R. 25, the record from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas and the briefs of counsel. Sylvia Boxerbaum, plaintiff-appellant, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, Case No. CV-325023, which granted summary judgment in favor of Marc Glassman, Inc., defendant-appellee, on plaintiff- appellant's personal injury complaint. Plaintiff-appellant assigns one error for this court's review.
Plaintiff-appellant's appeal is not well taken.
On January 31, 1996, plaintiff-appellant slipped and fell in a vestibule leading to the rear entrance of Marc's, a discount drug store, located at 13883 Cedar Road in South Euclid, Ohio. Plaintiff-appellant allegedly injured her back in the fall.
On January 22, 1997, plaintiff-appellant filed a personal injury action against defendant-appellee alleging that her injuries were caused by defendant-appellee's negligent failure to maintain the floor of the entrance in a safe condition and/or warn her of the slippery, dangerous and unsafe condition existing on the property. Plaintiff-appellant maintained that her fall was caused by the accumulation of ice and snow on the edge of a storm mat placed in the vestibule by defendant-appellee.
On September 15, 1997, defendant-appellee filed a motion for summary judgment in which it maintained that a store owner cannot be held liable for injuries sustained by a business invitee caused by ice, snow, slush or water tracked into the premises by third persons. Plaintiff-appellant filed her brief in opposition on October 10, 1997, in which she maintained that the store manager and employees knew of the condition prior to her fall and failed to maintain the storm mats accordingly or post warning signs regarding the hazardous condition of the floor.
On November 12, 1997, the trial court granted defendant- appellee's motion for summary judgment without opinion. Plaintiff- appellant now appeals from that judgment.
Plaintiff-appellant's sole assignment of error on appeal states:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING DEFENDANT-APPELLEE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
Plaintiff-appellant argues, through her sole assignment of error, that the defendant-appellee failed to meet its burden under Civ.R. 56 for summary judgment. It is plaintiff-appellant's position that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether defendant-appellee, by placing the storm mats in the vestibule, created a condition that was substantially more dangerous than that which existed normally. Plaintiff-appellant maintains further that a genuine issue of fact existed as to whether defendant-appellee's employees adequately maintained the area in question and whether warning signs should have been posted alerting business invitees to the potentially dangerous condition.
The standard for granting a motion for summary judgment is set forth in Civ.R. 56(C). In applying this rule, the Ohio Supreme Court has consistently held that, before such a motion can be granted, the moving party must show that: (1) there is no genuine issue of fact; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) it appears from the evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and viewing such evidence most strongly in favor of the non-moving party, that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made. Mootispaw v. Eckstein (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 383; Welco Industries, Inc. v. Applied Cas. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 344; Osborne v. Lyles (1992), 63 Ohio St.
Page 1 2 3 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|