 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Boxerbaum v. Marc Glassman7/30/1998
had no knowledge as to how the slush mixture came to be or how long it had been on the mat. Plaintiff-appellant maintains further that the placement of the storm mat by defendant-appellee somehow created an unnatural accumulation of ice and snow thereby precluding summary judgment. Plaintiff-appellant argues that defendant-appellee was clearly aware of the problem since the store manager testified that the storm mat was periodically cleaned during the day by two employees of defendant-appellee.
While plaintiff-appellant does not know precisely how the slush came to accumulate on the mat or how long it had been there, it is reasonable to infer, given the time of year, that the slush was tracked into the entryway by other patrons of Marc's. It is also apparent from the testimony presented that this condition was equally obvious to both the premises owner and plaintiff-appellant to the extent that plaintiff-appellant could reasonably be expected to protect herself accordingly. Sollo, supra, at 3, McCornell v. Bridges (Dec. 18, 1997), Cuyahoga App. No. 71988, unreported, Morgan v. Eastown Eagle Supermarket (Nov. 14, 1991), Cuyahoga App. No. 59359, unreported.
In addition, plaintiff-appellant's position that the storm mat somehow caused an unnatural accumulation of ice and snow to accumulate in the entryway of the store is unsupported by the record. There is no evidence that the mat itself caused plaintiff- appellant's fall in any way. The mat did not slip nor did it fold or crease causing plaintiff-appellant to trip. There is simply no evidence that the placement of the storm mat rendered the condition of the linoleum floor in the entryway to the store more dangerous than if defendant-appellee had left the floor uncovered. Morgan, supra, at 2, Coletta v. University of Akron (Aug. 25, 1988), Franklin App. No. 88 AP-102, unreported.
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff-appellant's sole assignment of error is not well taken.
Judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant costs herein taxed.
The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
JOSEPH J. NAHRA, PRESIDING JUDGE
JOHN T. PATTON, J., JUDGE
MICHAEL J. CORRIGAN, JUDGE
|