 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mowery v. Shoaf6/12/2002
lowing colloquy from Appellant's deposition is instructive:
. "Q. * * * ou got out and walked across the grassy area in the dark?
. "A. Yes.
. "Q. And walked across that driveway in the dark?
. "A. Yes.
. "Q. Even though you knew it was dangerous?
. "A. Yes, I didn't think I was going to fall.
. "Q. Well, you knew it was dangerous, that's what you told me, isn't that what you just said?
. "A. I did say it, but --
. "Q. Well, isn't it true -- you're just telling me the truth, aren't you?
. "A. I don't know how to explain that. But at the time I wasn't thinking I'm going to fall.
"Q. I know you weren't thinking you were going to fall. You just told me you knew there was no lights in that building, it was dangerous?
. "A. That part is true, yes.
. "Q. And you knew it that night, didn't you?
. "A. I guess I did.
. "Q. All right. And you got out of the car and you walked in that area even though it was dark and even though it was dangerous; that's true also isn't it?
. "A. That is true." (Appellant's Depo., Dec. 14, 2000, p. 52).
. As this passage illustrates, the danger here was evident to Appellant even before she entered the building. Accordingly, her, "* * *knowledge of the condition removes the sting of unreasonableness from any danger that lies in it, and obviousness may be relied on to supply knowledge." Wicichowski v. Gladieux V. Enterprises, Inc. (1988), 54 Ohio App.3d 177, 179; citing Sidle v. Humphrey (1968), 13 Ohio St.2d 45, 48; quoting 2 Harper & James, Law of Torts (1956) 1491 (the poor condition of the stairs presented an open and obvious danger to plaintiff that foreclosed property owner liability). Accordingly, notwithstanding the fact that the trial court granted summary judgment based on the erroneous conclusion that Appellant was a licensee on Appellee's property, the decision to grant summary judgment in this case was proper. After reviewing the record de novo, this Court is forced to conclude that there is no genuine issue of material fact that the danger presented in this case was any more foreseeable to Appellee than it was to Appellant. Based on the record and given the obvious danger that darkness presents, there is nothing on which to hold Appellee liable to Appellant for the injury she sustained when she fell on Appellee's property.
. Since we must overrule Appellant's three assignments of error, this Court affirms the judgment entered by the Columbiana County Court of Common Pleas.
Donofrio, J., concurs.
DeGenaro, J., concurs.
|