Brinkman v. Ross

• Decision Date: 29 December 1993
• Docket Number: No. 92-1909,92-1909
• Citation: 623 N.E.2d 1175,68 Ohio St.3d 82
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court
• Parties: BRINKMAN et al., Appellees, v. ROSS et al., Appellants.

Page 82

68 Ohio St.3d 82

623 N.E.2d 1175

BRINKMAN et al., Appellees, v.ROSS et al., Appellants.

No. 92-1909.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted Nov. 9, 1993.

Decided Dec. 29, 1993.

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

A homeowner has no common-law duty to remove or make less hazardous a natural accumulation of ice and snow on private sidewalks or walkways on the homeowner's premises, or to warn those who enter upon the premises of the inherent dangers presented by natural accumulations of ice and snow.

Richard and Nadine Ross, appellants, invited Carol and Charles Brinkman, appellees, to visit them at their home as social guests.The Brinkmans accepted the invitation for the evening of February 4, 1989.Before the Brinkmans were due to arrive, the private sidewalk situated between appellants' driveway and residence became hazardous to walk on due to a natural accumulation of ice and snow.Appellants knew of the hazardous condition, but they took no steps to alleviate the condition or to warn the Brinkmans of its existence.

The Brinkmans and their daughter arrived at appellants' residence on the evening of February 4, 1989, and parked in appellants' driveway.While walking on the sidewalk between the driveway and appellants' home, Carol Brinkman slipped on the snow-covered ice and fell, sustaining serious injuries.The fall was caused solely by the natural accumulation of ice on the sidewalk, which ice had been concealed from view by a natural accumulation of snow.Immediately prior to the fall, Carol Brinkman had warned her daughter of the slippery condition of the sidewalk.

The Brinkmans filed suit against appellants in the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County, alleging that appellants were negligent in maintaining "an ice-covered sidewalk concealed by a blanket of snow leading to the entranceway of [appellants'] residence."Appellants responded to the complaint and eventually moved for summary judgment.The trial court granted appellants' motion, finding that under "long-standing Ohio law there is no liability for failure to remove natural accumulations of ice and snow from sidewalks."

The court of appeals, in a divided vote, reversed the judgment of the trial court.The court of appeals' majority held that when a homeowner knows of a hazardous condition on the homeowner's premises caused by a natural accumulation of ice and snow, and the homeowner expressly invites a social guest to visit the premises at an appointed time, the homeowner owes a duty to the guest to take reasonable steps to remove the hazard and to warn the guest of the dangerous condition.

The cause is now before this court pursuant to the allowance of a motion to certify the record.

John S. Kuhn, Canton, for appellees.

John C. Nemeth and David A. Caborn, Columbus, for appellants.

Murray & Murray, L.P.A., John T. Murray, Sandusky and Alicia Wolph, Fostoria, urging affirmance for amicus curiae, Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers.

Isaac, Brant, Ledman & Teetor, Charles E. Brant, Steven G. LaForce and Barbara L. Kozar, Columbus, urging reversal for amicus curiae, Ohio Association of Civil Trial Attorneys.

DOUGLAS, Justice.

In Ohio, it is well established that an owner or occupier of land ordinarily owes no duty to business invitees to remove natural accumulations of ice and snow from the private sidewalks on the premises, or to warn the invitee of the dangers associated with such natural accumulations of ice and snow.In Debie v. Cochran Pharmacy-Berwick, Inc.(1967), 11 Ohio St.2d 38, 40 O.O.2d 52, 227 N.E.2d 603, paragraphs one and two of the syllabus, this court held that:

"1.When the owner or occupier of business premises is not shown to have notice, actual or implied, that the natural accumulation of snow and ice on his premises has created there a condition substantially more dangerous to his business invitees than they should have anticipated by reason of their knowledge of conditions prevailing generally in the area, there is a failure of proof of actionable negligence.

"2.The mere fact standing alone that the owner or occupier has failed to remove natural accumulations of snow and ice from private walks on his business premises for an unreasonable time does not give rise to an action by a business invitee who claims damages for injuries occasioned by a fall thereon."

In Sidle v. Humphrey(1968), 13 Ohio St.2d 45, 42 O.O.2d 96, 233 N.E.2d 589, paragraphs one, two and three of the syllabus, we held that:

"1.An occupier of premises is under no duty to protect a business invitee against dangers which are known to such invitee or are so obvious and apparent to such invitee that he may reasonably be expected to discover them and protect himself against them.

"2.The dangers from natural accumulations of ice and snow are ordinarily so obvious and apparent that an occupier of premises may reasonably expect that a business invitee on his premises will discover those dangers and protect himself against them. * * *

"3.Ordinarily, an owner and occupier has no duty to his business invitee to remove natural accumulations of snow and ice from private walks and steps on his premises. * * * "

The underlying rationale in both Debie and Sidle, supra, is that everyone is...