 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Johnson v. Duncan10/27/2005
{ } This case came to be heard upon the accelerated calendar pursuant to App.R. 11.1 and Loc.R. 11.1, the record from the lower court, the briefs, and the oral arguments of counsel.
{ } Plaintiff-appellant Jennifer Johnson (appellant) appeals from the trial court's decision granting summary judgment to defendant-appellee Twyla Duncan (appellee) in a personal injury case. After reviewing the facts of the case and pertinent law, we affirm.
I.
{ } On February 6, 2002, appellant went to appellee's property at 3805 East 142nd Street as a potential buyer. While inspecting the attic of the house, appellant heard a noise, became frightened and quickly began descending the stairs. Appellant slipped on something under her foot, fell down the stairs and injured her ankle.
{ } On January 30, 2004, appellant filed a personal injury complaint against appellee. Tiffany and Brittany Johnson were also listed as plaintiffs in this case, alleging loss of consortium. During discovery, it was established that pigeons had been living in appellee's attic, the area was covered in pigeon feces and feathers, the attic light was inoperable, and there was no handrail installed on the stairway to the attic.
{ } On February 8, 2005, the court granted summary judgment for appellee, stating that appellant failed to: 1) identify what caused her to fall; 2) put forth evidence that appellee had either actual or constructive knowledge of the condition of the stairs or created the condition of the stairs; and 3) show the condition of the stairs was hazardous enough to trigger a duty to warn.
II.
{ } All three of appellant's assignments of error allege that the trial court erred by granting appellee's motion for summary judgment. We review a lower court's granting of summary judgment de novo. Pursuant to Civ.R. 56(C), summary judgment is proper when: 1) no genuine issue of material fact remains to be litigated; 2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and 3) it appears from such evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and, reviewing such evidence most strongly in favor of the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that conclusion is adverse to the party. See Temple v. Wean United, Inc. (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 317.
{ } In order to efficiently discuss appellant's assignments of error, a brief overview of premises liability law is required. In premises liability law, an invitee is one who enters another's land by invitation for a purpose that is beneficial to the owner. Gladon v. Greater Cleveland RTA (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 312, 315. It is undisputed that appellant was an invitee on appellee's land. A property owner owes an invitee a duty of ordinary care to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition and to warn of hidden defects. Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy, Inc. (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 203.
{ } In her first assignment of error, appellant argues that "the trial court errored in ruling as a matter of law, that the defendant's duty to exercise ordinary care had been met when there was no inspection of the premises to insure a business invitee's safety."
{ } In its journal entry, the court correctly stated appellant's status, as well as the duty appellee owed her. However, appellant's assignment of error incorrectly surmises that the court found appellee did not breach this duty. The court came to no conclusion regarding whether appellee breached her duty to appellant. Instead, the court found that " n order to establish defendant's liability, however, plaintiff must be able to specify what caused her fall. This does not mean that plaintiff
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.
|
|