Martinelli v. Cua
| Decision Date | 06 February 1962 |
| Citation | 184 N.E.2d 514,115 Ohio App. 151 |
| Parties | , 20 O.O.2d 246 MARTINELLI, Appellant, v. CUA, d.b.a. Jerry Cua Market, Appellee. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
A storekeeper is not liable to a person who slips and falls on the snow and ice covering steps at the entranceway to his store nor has he a legal duty to warn his business invitees of such condition of such entranceway caused solely by the natural accumulation of snow. (Wise v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 94 Ohio App. 320, 115 N.E.2d 33, followed.)
Volkema, Wolske & Bopeley, Columbus, for appellant.
Wright, Harlor, Morris, Arnold & Glander and James E. Pohlman, Columbus, for appellee.
The plaintiff, appellant herein, filed her petition in the Municipal Court of Columbus alleging that she had slipped and fallen on the steps at the entrance to defendant's market; that the steps were covered with snow and under the snow there was ice which caused the steps to be slippery and dangerous; that the ice and snow had accumulated since early morning; and that the defendant knew of the presence of the accumulated ice and snow. The petition alleged also, as a second cause of action, that the defendant, appellee herein, allowed the snow and ice to remain on the entrance steps of his place of business, and that it became a public nuisance. As a result of the nuisance maintained by the defendant, plaintiff 'was caused to slip and fall,' receiving injuries for which she prayed damages.
The defendant demurred to the third amended petition and, when the demurrer was sustained, plaintiff preferred not to plead further and appealed to this court.
The only assignment of error is that the trial court erred in sustaining defendant's demurrer to the petition.
The trial court followed the case of Wise v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 94 Ohio App. 320, 115 N.E.2d 33, in which the Court of Appeals held that the operator of a store and adjoining parking lot was not liable to a customer who, after departing from such store and while walking across such parking lot, slipped and fell and sustained injuries, so long as there were no defects in the parking lot and it was not maintained in a dangerous condition except as to such dangers as are created by natural accumulations of ice and snow.
The plaintiff states that she cites no Ohio authority to support her position as to liability on the part of the storekeeper, as there is none; she concedes that the Wise case is squarely in point; and she asks that this court reconsider the rule of law from ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clemets v. Heston
...Section 328B(b) and at Comment e; see, also, Prosser & Keeton, Torts (5 Ed.1984) 236, Section 37; cf. Martinelli v. Cua (1962), 115 Ohio App. 151, 152, 184 N.E.2d 514 [20 O.O.2d 246]. Negligence is posited here on the officer's failure to act when there arguably existed a positive duty to d......
-
Sidle v. Humphrey
...App. 83, 61 N.E.2d 486; Wise v. A. & P. Tea Co. (Franklin County 1953), 94 Ohio App. 320, 115 N.E.2d 33; Martinelli v. Cua (Franklin County 1692), 115 Ohio App. 151, 184 N.E.2d 514; Levine v. Hart Motors, Inc. (Columbiana County 1955), Ohio App., 143 N.E.2d 602, 75 Ohio Law Abst. 265, 143 N......
-
Kwait v. John David Management Co.
...186; DeAmiches v. Popczun (1973), 35 Ohio St.2d 180-184, 299 N.E.2d 265; or a customer against a storekeeper, Martinelli v. Cua (1962), 115 Ohio App. 151, 152, 184 N.E.2d 514; see Debie v. Cochran Pharmacy-Berwick, Inc. (1967), 11 Ohio St.2d 38, at 41, 227 NE.2d 603 at 606, where it is 'The......
-
Jeswald v. Hutt
...Wise v. Great A. & P. Tea Co., 94 Ohio App. 320, 115 N.E.2d 33; Straley v. Keltner, 109 Ohio App. 51, 164 N.E.2d 186; Martinelli v. Cua, 115 Ohio App. 151, 184 N.E.2d 514.) This is particularly true when there was ice and snow, as shown by the record, all over the city at the time of this I......