Roberts v. Kauffman 4 Dayton, Ltd.
| Decision Date | 09 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | 29412 |
| Citation | 2022 Ohio 3164 |
| Parties | ALLEN KEITH ROBERTS Plaintiff-Appellant v. KAUFFMAN 4 DAYTON, LTD, et al. Defendants-Appellees |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Civil Appeal from Common Pleas Court Trial Court Case No 2021-CV-130
ALLEN KEITH ROBERTS, 4916 Oaks Court, Middletown, Ohio 45044 Plaintiff-Appellant, Pro Se
MOLLY G. VANCE, Atty. Reg. No. 0076494, P.O. Box 6835, Scranton Pennsylvania 18505 Attorney for Defendant-Appellee, Kauffman 4 Dayton, Ltd.
BRIAN L. WILDERMUTH, Atty. Reg. No. 0066303, 50 Chestnut Street Suite 230, Dayton, Ohio 45440 Attorney for Defendant-Appellee, Central Miami Property Maintenance
{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant Allen Keith Roberts appeals from a judgment of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, which rendered summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees Kauffman 4 Dayton, Ltd. ("Kauffman") and Central Miami Property Maintenance ("Central Miami") on Roberts's "slip and fall" negligence claim against them. For the following reasons, the trial court's judgment will be affirmed.
{¶ 2} This appeal stems from injuries sustained by Roberts on January 14, 2019. On that date, Roberts arrived at the facility of his employer, Freight Rite, at his usual time of approximately 6:30 a.m. Roberts was aware that it had snowed two days prior with approximately eight inches of snow accumulation. After exiting his vehicle, Roberts walked across the parking lot toward the facility entrance ramp located at the end of the building. Roberts was a few feet from the ramp when he slipped on ice and fell to the ground. Roberts sustained multiple breaks to his right leg, which required surgery. He also tore three ligaments and sustained nerve damage.
{¶ 3} Kauffman owns the commercial office building and parking lot leased by Freight Rite. Central Miami is an independent contractor who provided snowplowing services to Kauffman for the Freight Rite facility following the snow event.
{¶ 4} On January 12, 2021, Roberts filed an action against Kauffman and Central Miami alleging that they had negligently failed to provide a safe means of ingress; had created or maintained an unreasonably dangerous and hazardous condition as a result of the plowing activities, which in turn had caused the naturally accumulated snow and ice to be more dangerous than would normally be encountered; and had failed to reasonably inspect, remove, or warn him of the existence of this dangerous condition.
{¶ 5} After taking Roberts's deposition, Kauffman and Central Miami filed motions for summary judgment on Roberts's claims. Both defendants argued they had not created an unnatural accumulation of snow and ice on the property and that the danger posed by the snow and ice had been open and obvious. Roberts opposed the motion, arguing that the plowed snow was pushed to the edge of the fence line which, based upon the slope of the terrain, allowed thawed snow to seep to the parking lot area where he ultimately fell, and then the accumulated water refroze. Roberts argued that the ice patch so created had been an unnatural and negligently created ice accumulation. Roberts also asserted that the icy patch had not been open and obvious.
{¶ 6} The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Kauffman and Central Miami. In its decision, the trial court concluded that Roberts's claims were precluded by the "no-duty winter rule" and the open and obvious doctrine.
{¶ 7} Roberts appeals.
{¶ 8} As written, Roberts's first assignment of error states the following:
TRAIL COURT FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR ABUSE OF DISCRETION ALLOWING FAILURE TO FILE IN TIMELY MANNER INTO THE RECORD
{¶ 9} Roberts contends that the trial court erred by permitting Central Miami to file a reply memorandum outside of the time allowed by the trial court's final pretrial order. That order required all motions for summary judgment be filed by November 22, 2021. The order also made responses due 28 days after the movant's filing and replies due seven days after the filing of any responses.
{¶ 10} Central Miami filed its motion for summary judgment on November 12, 2021. Roberts filed his response on December 10, 2021. Prior to the expiration of the 7 day deadline for its reply, Central Miami filed a motion for an extension of time to file its reply. Although no decision was entered regarding the motion for an extension, Central Miami filed its reply on December 28, 2021. Thus, there is no dispute that the reply was not filed in the time permitted by the pretrial order.
{¶ 11} "Trial courts have inherent power to manage their own dockets and the progress of the proceedings before them." Pond v. Pond, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 20AP-262, 2021-Ohio-1708, ¶ 9, quoting U.S. Bank Natl. Assn. v. Lewis, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 18AP-550, 2019-Ohio-3014, ¶ 10, citing Canady v. Rekau & Rekau, Inc., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 09AP-32, 2009-Ohio-4974, ¶ 16. In reviewing whether a court erred in the implementation of its own scheduling order, we generally apply the abuse of discretion standard. Id., citing America's Floor Source, LLC v. Homes, 191 Ohio App.3d 493, 2010-Ohio-6296, 946 N.E.2d 799, ¶ 46 (10th Dist.). We have reviewed the record and note that Roberts, who was represented by counsel at the time, did not object to the late filing of the reply.[1] Thus, he has waived all but plain error.
{¶ 12} "The plain error doctrine is not favored in civil appeals." Daniel v. Walder, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 27558, 2017-Ohio-8914, ¶ 12, citing Care Risk Retention Group v. Martin, 191 Ohio App.3d 797, 2010-Ohio-6091, 947 N.E.2d 1214, ¶ 80 (2d Dist.). "Plain error in civil cases is defined as error that 'seriously affects the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process, thereby challenging the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process itself.'" Id., quoting Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116, 679 N.E.2d 1099 (1997), syllabus. "Civil plain error is applied 'only in the extremely rare case.'" Id.
{¶ 13} The record does not contain any evidence that Roberts filed a written or oral objection to the reply during the month-long period of time between the date the reply was filed and the entry of the trial court's decision on February 2, 2022. More importantly, Roberts does not allege any prejudice stemming from the late filing. From our review, we cannot say Roberts has demonstrated an abuse of discretion, let alone plain error. Thus, we find no merit in this argument.
{¶ 14} The first assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 15} Roberts's second and third assignments of error, as written, state:
{¶ 16} In these assignments of error, Roberts challenges the trial court's decision to render summary judgment against him.
{¶ 17} Civ.R. 56(C) provides summary judgment may be granted when the moving party demonstrates that (1) there is no genuine issue of material fact, (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and (3) viewing the evidence most strongly in favor of the nonmoving party, reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made. Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc., 82 Ohio St.3d 367, 369-370, 696 N.E.2d 201 (1998). Our review of the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment against Roberts is de novo. Helton v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 123 Ohio App.3d 158, 162, 703 N.E.2d 841 (4th Dist.1997).
{¶ 18} With this standard in mind, we turn to the question of negligence as raised by Roberts. "[I]n order to establish actionable negligence, one seeking recovery must show the existence of a duty, the breach of the duty, and injury resulting proximately therefrom." Perko v. Healthcare Servs. Group, Inc., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 110267, 2021-Ohio-4216, ¶ 7, quoting Strother v. Hutchinson, 67 Ohio St.2d 282, 285, 423 N.E.2d 467 (1981). The status of a person who enters the land of another defines the scope of the legal duty owed to that person. Gladon v. Greater Cleveland Reg. Transit Auth., 75 Ohio St.3d 312, 315, 662 N.E.2d 287 (1996). It is undisputed in this case that Roberts was a business invitee on the property. With respect to business invitees, an owner's duty is to keep the premises in reasonably safe condition and to warn of dangers that are known to the owner. Hill v. Mullins, 2017-Ohio-1302, 88 N.E.3d 575, ¶ 14 (2d Dist.).
{¶ 19} However, a business owner's duty to business invitees does not extend to hazards from natural accumulations of ice and snow. Tyrrell v. Invest Assocs., Inc., 16 Ohio App.3d 47, 49, 474 N.E.2d 621 (8th Dist. 1984). Further, business owners generally owe no duty to a business invitee to remove natural accumulations of ice and snow or to warn invitees of the dangers associated with such natural accumulation. Brinkman v. Ross, 68 Ohio St.3d 82, 83, 623 N.E.2d 1175 (1993). There is no such duty because "[t]he 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial