As the summer approaches and outdoor activities increase, the risk of injuries to patrons of outdoor property owners increases. The liability for those injuries was recently reviewed by the Ohio Court of Appeals for the Fifth District.
In Radford v. National Whitetail Deer Education Foundation, the Plaintiff and her husband attended an annual fundraiser held in a large grassy field. The fundraiser involved a weekend of prize drawings, entertainment and vendor displays, as well as food and drink. The area also contained a pavilion with a gravel walkway leading to the entrance, in addition to restroom facilities. Multiple vendors had set up tents in the field, displaying their wares. Plaintiff Lauren Radford was walking between two vendors’ displays when she stepped in a hole and broke her foot. The hole was described as being twelve to fifteen inches wide and five inches deep, and appeared as a grassy, oblong depression in the ground.
Plaintiff filed suit against the sponsor of the event, National Whitetail. National Whitetail filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that it did not owe any duty to the Plaintiff, that the hole was open and obvious, and any claims were barred by the terms of a waiver contained in the ticket purchased at the main entrance to the event. The Trial Court entered summary judgment, finding that the hole was not an unreasonably dangerous condition and was open and obvious, negating any duty to warn or protect the Plaintiff. Plaintiff appealed.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. Initially, the Court reaffirmed that Ohio retains a tiered approach to liability depending upon the status of the person on the premises. The order of duty varies, from lowest to highest, for a trespasser, licensee or invitee. The Court determined the Plaintiff was a business invitee, and therefore reviewed the duty owed to a business invitee under Ohio law. The Court noted that “the owner of a premises is not an insurer for the safety of visitors who come upon his land”, and began its analysis.
The Appellate Court found that the Plaintiff was attending an outdoor event held in an open, grassy field, “an area that remains rustic in nature, in which will invariably contain various dips, holes and contours.” The Court found this fact to be determinative of the Plaintiff’s general knowledge of the ground conditions. As such, the Court concluded that Plaintiff had the equivalent knowledge of the conditions of the property as the owner, and therefore was owed no duty to warn about the hole, concluding that the hole would have been an open and obvious danger.
As an alternative, the Court also held that even if the hole was not open and obvious, the summary judgment was properly granted as Plaintiff could produce no evidence to establish that the property owner had knowledge of, or should have known of, the existence of the hole. The Court’s holding confirms the long standing tradition in Ohio that premises owners are not liable for unknown dangers, nor for open and obvious dangers. Outdoor activities that are conducted in open fields that are rustic in nature impose upon its patrons a duty to protect themselves from the obvious changes in elevations, holes and other natural occuring formations.
If you have any additional questions of wish a full copy of the decision, please contact one of our Retail / Hospitality Practice Group Members.