Grimberg v. Blackbird Baking Co. , 2023 Ohio 313 ( 2023 )

[Cite as Grimberg v. Blackbird Baking Co., 2023-Ohio-313.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
ANN MARIE GRIMBERG, :
Plaintiff-Appellant, :
No. 111592
v. :
BLACKBIRD BAKING
COMPANY, ET AL., :
Defendants-Appellees. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: February 2, 2023
Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CV-20-940054
Appearances:
Randazzo Law, LLC and Russell Randazzo, for appellant.
Patrick S. Corrigan, for appellees.
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J.:
Plaintiff-appellant, Ann Marie Grimberg (“Grimberg”), appeals from an
order denying her motion for summary judgment and granting summary judgment
in favor of defendants-appellees, MJK Tavern, Inc. (“MJK Tavern”), Sweet Cheeks,
Ltd. (“Sweet Cheeks”), and MJK-PJK Properties L.L.C. (“MJK-PJK”) (collectively
“appellees”). She claims the following errors:
1. The trial court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff leave to file
an amended complaint and add new parties.
2. The trial court abused its discretion in granting defendants’ motion
for summary judgment.
3. The trial court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion for
summary judgment.
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
I. Facts and Procedural History
Grimberg filed a complaint in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common
Pleas seeking damages for injuries she sustained when she slipped and fell on ice
and snow after purchasing coffee and pastries from the Blackbird Baking Company
(“Blackbird”) on December 18, 2019. The parking lot, which is located in Lakewood,
Ohio, was owned and managed by Sweet Cheeks.
Grimberg alleged that snow had fallen in the early morning hours and
that the parking lot had not been plowed when she arrived at the bakery at
approximately 9:05 a.m. She further alleged that Lakewood Codified Ordinances
(“L.C.O.”) 521.06 required appellees, as the property owners, to remove or clear
away all snow and ice by 9:00 a.m. each day. Because the parking lot was not plowed
when Grimberg fell at 9:05 a.m., she claimed appellees’ failure to comply with the
Lakewood ordinances constituted negligence per se. Grimberg also asserted a
separate negligence claim, alleging that appellees failed to properly maintain the
parking lot and that defects in the parking lot created imperfections that allowed ice
to form.
Cincinnati Insurance Company (“Cincinnati”) insured the property
where Grimberg fell. During discovery, Grimberg learned that appellees had hired
Forni Landscaping to plow the parking lot. She also learned that Mary Kay
McAndrews (“McAndrews”), the Cincinnati claims representative who was
managing the claim, had asked Forni Landscaping to provide information regarding
the time it plowed the Blackbird lot on the day of the incident. She also asked Forni
Landscaping to provide its insurance information to her.
After taking the deposition of David Forni (“Forni”), the corporate
representative of Forni Landscaping, Grimberg filed a motion for leave to amend the
complaint on September 22, 2021. Forni testified during his deposition that, at the
request of Ryan Krivosh, Sweet Cheeks’s principal, he provided an email to Krivosh
in January 2020, regarding Grimberg’s slip and fall at the Blackbird parking lot.
(Forni depo. p. 49-50.) In the email, Forni stated that his company plowed the
parking lot at 5:30 a.m. (Forni depo. p. 54.)
Surveillance video captured on a Lakewood Police Department camera
showed that the lot was not plowed until approximately 9:30 a.m. (Forni depo. p.
53-54.) When Grimberg’s lawyer presented this fact to Forni, Forni admitted his
statement that the lot was plowed at 5:30 a.m. must have been inaccurate. (Forni
depo. p. 54.) Forni further admitted that he did not confirm with George Wilburn
(“Wilburn”), the employee who plowed the lot, when he actually completed the
plowing. (Forni depo. p. 21, 53.) Forni explained that the parking lot at Blackbird
is one of their “earlier clients” because it opens early. (Forni depo. p. 53.)
After Forni’s deposition was taken, Forni voluntarily produced a series
of text messages between himself and Wilburn. In one message, sent at 5:52 a.m.,
Forni instructed Wilburn as follows: “George you can come in right away please let
me know your ETA to shop.” Grimberg attached a copy of this text message and the
transcript to Forni’s deposition to her motion to amend the complaint wherein she
alleged that Forni conspired with Krivosh and McAndrews to “deny coverage” for
Grimberg’s claim. (Motion for leave to file first amended complaint p. 8.)
Grimberg asserted that based on the email exchange between Forni and
Wilburn, “it is clear the content of the email from Mr. Forni that the Blackbird lot
was plowed at 5:30 a.m. was either made with knowledge of its falsity, or with such
utter disregard and recklessness as to whether it is true that knowledge may be
inferred.” (Motion for leave to file first amended complaint p. 7.) Accordingly,
Grimberg sought to add McAndrews, Cincinnati, Forni, and Forni Landscaping as
party-defendants and to assert the additional claims of fraud and conspiracy against
them. The trial court denied Grimberg’s motion to amend the complaint.
Grimberg and appellees subsequently filed motions for summary
judgment on Grimberg’s claims for negligence and negligence per se. The parties
filed several deposition transcripts in support of their respective motions. Adria
Clark (“Clark”), the owner of Blackbird, testified that within an hour of the incident,
she went to the location of Grimberg’s fall and did not see any puddles or significant
surface deviations in the pavement. (Clark depo. p.11.) She also stated that she had
never seen any puddles in the parking lot turn into ice.
Christina Wright (“Wright”), an employee of Blackbird, attended to
Grimberg after her fall. Wright testified that it was snowing lightly at the time of
Grimberg’s fall, and she observed snow in the parking lot, but she did not see any
potholes where Grimberg fell. (Wright depo. p. 11-12.) Wright further stated that
she parked her car in the same parking lot as Grimberg and that she has never
encountered any hazardous conditions in the lot. (Wright depo. p. 13.) Charity
Thomas, another Blackbird employee, also testified that the parking lot is “usually
always plowed” when it snows. She also attended to Grimberg, and she did not see
any surface deviations under the snow. (Wright depo. p. 11-12.)
Michael Krivosh (“Krivosh”), the owner of Sweet Cheeks, testified that
the parking lot is composed of several parcels with separate owners, but the parcel
in which Grimberg fell was owned and maintained by Sweet Cheeks. Krivosh
explained that the two other entities Grimberg sued, namely MJK Tavern and MJK-
PJK, have neither an ownership interest in the parcel where Grimberg fell nor do
they have any control over the parcel. Krivosh further stated that Sweet Cheeks has
never been cited by the city of Lakewood for the condition of the parking lot, nor has
anyone ever been injured in the parking lot prior to Grimberg’s incident. (Krivosh
depo. p. 32, 67-70.)
Tony Bacho (“Bacho”), the owner of Stripe it Now L.L.C., an asphalt
maintenance company, testified that his company was retained by Sweet Cheeks to
service the parking lot where Grimberg fell. (Bacho depo. p. 7.) The lot was assessed
and serviced in 2016, when a ton of asphalt was put down, a catch basin was
repaired, and cracks were filled in. The lot was again serviced in October or
November 2018, when asphalt patching and filling was completed. (Bacho depo.
p. 12.) According to Bacho, the Blackbird parking lot is serviced annually and, in
2020, it only needed restriping because it was a mild winter and the lot “was in great
shape.” (Bacho depo. p. 18.) Bacho explained that variations in asphalt surfaces are
normal and do not indicate poor maintenance.
Grimberg submitted the expert report and affidavit of George J. Inglis
(“Inglis”), a professional engineer, in support of her motion for summary judgment.
Inglis stated in his report that photographs of the parking lot reveal depressions,
irregular surfaces with asphalt patches, and some standing water and that the
parking lot was not in compliance with 2015 International Property Maintenance
Code (“2015-IPMC”). Inglis further opined that the parking lot was in violation of
L.C.O. 521.06 because the lot was not cleared of snow by 9:00 a.m. on the day
Grimberg fell. Inglis’s report states, in relevant part:
Observations and photo documentation included in Exhibit 2 confirms
that the parking areas owned by MJK Tavern, and leased to Blackbird
Bakery and other local businesses, were not cleared of snow at the time
that Ann Marie Grimberg sustained her injury as required by the City
of Lakewood Ordinance 521.06.
Appellees submitted the expert report and affidavit of Richard Peter
Kraly (“Kraly”), an architect and consultant, in support of their motion for summary
judgment. Kraly opined that the parking lot was maintained in full compliance with
the city of Lakewood ordinances because L.C.O. 521.06 governs city sidewalks and
does not apply to parking lots. Kraly also noted that the city of Lakewood has not
adopted and does not enforce the 2015-IPMC. Kraly noted that although the
photographs of the parking lot show some standing water, Grimberg did not fall in
any of the areas with standing water. Finally, Kraly observed, Inglis criticized (1)
other parking lots he mistakenly believed were owned and operated by Sweet
Cheeks, and (2) other areas of the Blackbird parking lot remote from the location
where Grimberg fell on December 18, 2019. Kraly explained:
The subject parking lot adjacent to Blackbird contains 85 spaces but
only the two rows in the middle, one of which is where Grimberg parked
her vehicle, are owned and operated by Sweet Cheeks. The other
parcels that contain the majority of the total number of parking spaces
are owned and operated by entities other than Sweet Cheeks.
The court denied Grimberg’s motion for summary judgment and
granted summary judgment in favor of appellees. Grimberg now appeals the trial
court’s judgment.
II. Law and Analysis
A. Motion to Amend the Complaint
In the first assignment of error, Grimberg argues the trial court abused
its discretion in denying her motion for leave to amend the complaint to add new
parties. She contends the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion
because the motion was timely filed and set forth a claim upon which relief could be
granted.
We review a trial court’s judgment on a motion to amend the
complaint for an abuse of discretion. Franciscan Communities, Inc. v. Rice, 8th
Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109889, 2021-Ohio-1729, ¶ 32, citing Wilmington Steel Prods.,
Inc. v. Cleveland Elec. Illum. Co., 60 Ohio St.3d 120, 122, 573 N.E.2d 622 (1991).
An abuse of discretion occurs when a court exercises its judgment in an unwarranted
way regarding a matter over which it has discretionary authority. Johnson v.
Abdullah, 166 Ohio St.3d 427, 2021-Ohio-3304, 187 N.E.3d 463, ¶ 35. In other
words, “[a] court abuses its discretion when a legal rule entrusts a decision to a
judge’s discretion and the judge’s exercise of that discretion is outside of the legally
permissible range of choices.” State v. Hackett, 164 Ohio St.3d 74, 2020-Ohio-
6699, 172 N.E.3d 75, ¶ 19.
This court has held that an abuse of discretion may be found where a
trial court “applies the wrong legal standard, misapplies the correct legal standard,
or relies on clearly erroneous findings of fact.” Thomas v. Cleveland, 176 Ohio
App.3d 401, 2008-Ohio-1720, 892 N.E.2d 454, ¶ 15 (8th Dist.). When applying the
abuse of discretion standard, a reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for
that of the trial court. Vannucci v. Schneider, 2018-Ohio-1294, 110 N.E.3d 716, ¶ 22
(8th Dist.).
Civ.R. 15(A) governs amendments to pleadings and states, in relevant
part:
A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within
twenty-eight days after serving it or, if the pleading is one to which a
responsive pleading is required within twenty-eight days after service
of a responsive pleading or twenty-eight days after service of a motion
under Civ.R. 12(B), (E), or (F), whichever is earlier. In all other cases, a
party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party’s written
consent or the court’s leave. The court shall freely give leave when
justice so requires.
“The language of Civ.R. 15(A) favors a liberal policy when the trial judge is
confronted with a motion to amend a pleading beyond the time limit when such
amendments are automatically allowed.” Wilmington Steel., 60 Ohio St.3d at 122,
573 N.E.2d 622.
However, there is no unconditional or absolute right to amend a
complaint once the time specified in Civ.R. 15(A) has passed. Franciscan
Communities, Inc. v. Rice, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109889, 2021-Ohio-1729, at ¶ 31.
Amendments must be sought in good faith and not for purposes of delay. Solowitch
v. Bennett, 8 Ohio App.3d 115, 456 N.E.2d 562 (8th Dist.1982); Franciscan
Communities at ¶ 31, citing Solowitch.
In Wilmington Steel, the Ohio Supreme Court adopted the test set
forth in Solowitch and held that “where a plaintiff fails to make a prima facie
showing of support for the new matters sought to be pleaded, a trial court acts within
its discretion to deny a motion to amend the pleading.” Wilmington Steel at 123,
citing Solowitch at 117.
The amended complaint sought to add fraud and conspiracy claims
against Cincinnati, McAndrews, Forni Landscaping, and David Forni, in his
individual capacity. To properly plead a fraud claim, the plaintiff must establish the
following elements: (1) a representation (or concealment of fact when there is a duty
to disclose); (2) that is material to the transaction; (3) made falsely, with knowledge
of its falsity or with such utter disregard and recklessness as to whether it is true or
false; (4) with intent to mislead another into relying upon it; (5) justifiable reliance;
and (6) resulting injury proximately caused by the reliance. Volbers-Klarich v.
Middletown Mgt., Inc., 125 Ohio St.3d 494, 2010-Ohio-2057, 929 N.E.2d 434, ¶ 27.
To properly plead a civil-conspiracy claim in Ohio, the plaintiff must
establish the following: (1) a malicious combination of two or more persons; (2)
causing injury to another person or property; and (3) the existence of an unlawful
act independent from the conspiracy itself. Woods v. Sharkin, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga
No. 110567, 2022-Ohio-1949, ¶ 103, citing Syed v. Poulos, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.
99884, 2013-Ohio-5739, ¶ 14, citing Kenty v. Transamerica Premium Ins. Co., 72
Ohio St.3d 415, 419, 650 N.E.2d 863 (1995). An underlying unlawful act must be
committed in order to establish an action for civil conspiracy. Id., citing Gosden v.
Louis, 116 Ohio App.3d 195, 219, 687 N.E.2d 481 (9th Dist.1996).
In the motion to amend the complaint, Grimberg alleged that Forni,
Forni Landscaping, McAndrews, and Cincinnati conspired to deny coverage to
Grimberg. As previously stated, Forni stated at his deposition that the Blackbird
parking lot was plowed at 5:30 a.m., but Lakewood police surveillance cameras
showed that the parking lot was not plowed until approximately 9:30 a.m. No
surveillance footage was produced to conclusively establish the parking was not
plowed earlier that morning and that the truck returned at 9:30 a.m. Nevertheless,
after his deposition, Forni voluntarily produced a series of text messages between
himself and his employee Wilburn. In one message sent at 5:52 a.m., Forni
instructed Wilburn to come to the shop “right away.” Grimberg claimed the
surveillance video and Forni’s text to Wilburn proved that Forni and McAndrews
conspired to deprive Grimberg of insurance benefits under the Cincinnati policy that
insured Sweet Cheeks’ property because Forni’s texts contradict Forni’s deposition
testimony that his company plowed the parking lot at 5:30 a.m. The motion to
amend the complaint states, in relevant part: “Either Mr. Forni knowingly falsified
the time in the email or was requested by someone to put a false time in the email
regarding when his company snowplowed the Blackbird lot.” (Motion to amend
complaint p. 4.)
However, nothing in the record, including the cross-examination of
Forni, suggests that Forni intentionally misstated the facts. Forni indicated during
his deposition that he was not certain what time the lot was plowed, but he believed
it was early because the lot is one of the first to be plowed since the Blackbird bakery
opens early. (Forni depo. p. 53-54.) It is clear from this testimony that Forni was
guessing at the time the lot was plowed based on the company’s practice of plowing
the Blackbird lot near the beginning of the route. Forni also voluntarily provided
the text messages with his employee and made no effort to conceal them. Neither
Forni’s testimony nor his voluntary disclosure of messages with his employee
suggest that Forni knowingly falsified the time the Blackbird lot was plowed. Nor is
there any evidence to support Grimberg’s allegation that Forni “was requested by
someone to put a false time in the email * * *.” (Motion to amend complaint p. 4.)
Appellees never raised the timing of the plowing as a defense to liability. To the
contrary, they asserted the no-duty winter rule and the open and obvious doctrines
as defenses to liability. Therefore, Grimberg cannot establish a prima facie case for
asserting fraud and conspiracy claims against Forni, Forni Landscaping, Cincinnati,
or McAndrews.
Moreover, Grimberg has no standing or cause of action to sue
Cincinnati or McAndrews even if coverage were denied.1 It is undisputed that
Grimberg is not the holder of the policy that insured the parking lot. And while an
insurer has a duty to act in good faith in settling the claims of its insured, it owes no
duty to third parties such as Grimberg. Pasipanki v. Morton, 61 Ohio App.3d 184,
185, 572 N.E.2d 234 (9th Dist. 1990).
“A third party has no cause of action for bad faith against the
tortfeasor’s insurance company.” Id. “Ohio insurance law ‘does not permit an
injured party to sue an insurance company, of which it is not an insured, directly
without first obtaining a judgment against the tortfeasor.’” Intercity Auto Sales, Inc.
v. Evans, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 95778, 2011-Ohio-1378, ¶ 22, quoting Univ.
Hosps. Health Sys. v. Total Technical Servs., Inc., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 93708,
2010-Ohio-2606, ¶ 11, citing Chitlik v. Allstate Ins. Co., 34 Ohio App.2d 193, 299
N.E.2d 295 (8th Dist.1973), R.C. 3929.06(B) and 2721.02(B). Therefore, Grimberg
cannot state a claim for relief against McAndrews or Cincinnati.
1 There is nothing in the record to suggest that coverage has been denied.
We agree with the trial court that Grimberg failed to establish a prima
facie case for fraud and conspiracy against Forni, Forni Landscaping, Cincinnati, or
McAndrews. Accordingly, the first assignment of error is overruled.
B. Summary Judgment
In the second and third assignments of error, Grimberg argues the
trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of appellees on her claims
for negligence and negligence per se. In both assigned errors, she argues there are
genuine issues of material fact as to whether the parking lot was maintained in a safe
condition and that these factual issues preclude summary judgment on her claims.
We discuss these assigned errors together.
1. Standard of Review
Appellate review of summary judgments is de novo. Grafton v. Ohio
Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 105, 671 N.E.2d 241 (1996). Pursuant to Civ.R. 56(C),
summary judgment is appropriate when (1) there is no genuine issue of material
fact; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3)
reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to
the nonmoving party, said party being entitled to have the evidence construed most
strongly in his or her favor. Horton v. Harwick Chem. Corp., 73 Ohio St.3d 679,
653 N.E.2d 1196 (1995), paragraph three of the syllabus; Zivich v. Mentor Soccer
Club, 82 Ohio St.3d 367, 696 N.E.2d 201 (1998). The party moving for summary
judgment bears the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact
and that he or she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Dresher v. Burt, 75
Ohio St.3d 280, 662 N.E.2d 264 (1996).
2. Duty of Care
Grimberg presents two claims: one for negligence and one for
negligence per se. Under Ohio law, a negligence claim requires proof of “(1) the
existence of a legal duty, (2) the defendant’s breach of that duty, and (3) injury that
is the proximate cause of the defendant’ s breach.” Wallace v. Ohio DOC, 96 Ohio
St.3d 266, 2002-Ohio-4210, 773 N.E.2d 1018, ¶ 22. Although Grimberg pleaded
negligence per se as a separate cause of action, negligence per se is a legal doctrine
that allows the court to find the duty and breach elements of a negligence action
established by virtue of the defendant’s act or omission in violation of statute. Asher
v. Glenway Real Estate, L.L.C., 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-180663, 2019-Ohio-4851,
¶ 25.
Under Ohio law, the scope of a property owner’s duty depends on
whether the injured person is an invitee, licensee, or trespasser. Gladon v. Greater
Cleveland Regional Transit Auth., 75 Ohio St.3d 312, 315, 662 N.E.2d 287 (1996);
Thayer v. B.L. Bldg. & Remodeling, L.L.C., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 105950, 2018-
Ohio-1197, ¶ 24.
An owner or occupier of premises owes its invitees “a duty of ordinary
care in maintaining the premises in a reasonably safe condition and has the duty to
warn its invitees of latent or hidden dangers.” Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc., 99
Ohio St.3d 79, 81, 2003-Ohio-2573, 788 N.E.2d 1088, ¶ 5. A property owner owes
no duty to a licensee except to refrain from willful, wanton, or reckless conduct that
is likely to injure him. Gladon, 75 Ohio St.3d at 317, 662 N.E.2d 287, citing Soles v.
Ohio Edison Co., 144 Ohio St. 373, 59 N.E.2d 138 (1945), paragraph one of the
syllabus. In other words, licensors are “not liable for ordinary negligence.” Light v.
Ohio Univ., 28 Ohio St.3d 66, 68, 502 N.E.2d 611 (1986). “[A] licensee takes his
license subject to its attendant perils and risks.” Hannan v. Ehrlich, 102 Ohio St.
176, 131 N.E. 504 (1921), paragraph four of the syllabus.
Grimberg contends she was an invitee, and appellees argue she was a
licensee. An invitee is a person who comes “upon the premises of another, by
invitation, express or implied, for some purpose which is beneficial to the owner.”
Baldauf v. Kent State Univ., 49 Ohio App.3d 46, 47, 550 N.E.2d 517 (10th
Dist.1988). A licensee is one “who enters the premises of another by permission or
acquiescence, for his own pleasure or benefit, and not by invitation.” Williams v.
Cook, 132 Ohio App.3d 444, 449, 725 N.E.2d 339 (3d Dist.1999), quoting
Provencher v. Ohio DOT, 49 Ohio St.3d 265, 266, 551 N.E.2d 1257, 1258 (1990).
Grimberg parked in the lot owned by Sweet Cheeks in order to
purchase coffee and pastries at Blackbird. Although Sweet Cheeks does not own or
operate the bakery, it leases the property to Blackbird. The parking lot allows
customers to shop at the bakery, which pays rent to Sweet Cheeks. Therefore, Sweet
Cheeks benefitted, albeit indirectly, from Grimberg’s visit to the property. She was,
therefore, an invitee, and Sweet Cheeks owed her a duty of care to maintain the
property in a reasonably safe condition.
3. Lakewood Ordinances
Grimberg argues appellees violated L.C.O. 521.06(a) because they
failed to plow the parking lot before 9:00 a.m. and, therefore, constituted negligence
per se. L.C.O. 521.06(a) is titled “Duty to Keep Sidewalks in Repair and Clean,” and
states, in relevant part:
(a) Every owner, occupant or person having charge of any tenement
building, lot or land fronting any avenue, street, alley or public highway
in the City shall remove and clear away, or cause to be removed or
cleared away, snow and ice from a path of at least four feet in width
from so much of the sidewalk whether or not flagged or paved as is in
front of or abuts such building or lot or land.
No person removing snow from any driveway, sidewalk, public or
private parking lot or private premises within the City shall deposit the
same on the street, pavement, sidewalk or driveway apron of any public
street. (Ord. 3-85. Passed 2-4-85.)
(1) Except as provided in subsection (b) hereof, snow and ice shall be
removed from all business districts within the City by 9:00 a.m. of each
day.
(2) Except as provided in subsection (b) hereof, snow and ice shall be
removed from all other sidewalks within the City on the same day as
the cessation of any fall of snow, sleet or freezing rail or not later than
8:00 p.m. after the cessation of such fall, whichever period is longer.
Grimberg contends this ordinance creates a duty requiring
landowners in business districts to remove all snow from their parking lots by 9:00
a.m. and that failure to do so constitutes negligence per se. Appellees argue the
ordinance only applies to sidewalks as its title implies. A plain reading of the
ordinance indicates that it applies to sidewalks, not streets. Although the ordinance
prohibits anyone removing snow from driveways and sidewalks from dumping the
snow into any public street, the ordinance imposes an affirmative duty on property
owners to clear a path “at least four feet in width” from the sidewalk. It does not
provide a similar duty to remove snow from parking lots by 9:00 a.m. Therefore,
whether the Sweet Cheeks’ parking lot was plowed before or after 9:00 is
immaterial; the failure to plow the parking lot was not negligence per se because it
did not constitute a statutory violation.
4. Open and Obvious and the “No-Duty Winter Rule”
As previously stated, appellees owed Grimberg a duty of care to
maintain the parking lot in a reasonably safe condition. However, a premises owner
is not an insurer of its invitees’ safety against all forms of accidents that may occur
on the premises. Shick v. Rite Aid, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 107805, 2019-Ohio-
2238, ¶ 10, citing Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy, Inc., 18 Ohio St.3d 203, 204, 480
N.E.2d 474 (1985). A property owner “is under no duty to protect business invitees
from 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.’” Paschal at 203-204, quoting Sidle v. Humphrey, 13 Ohio
St.2d 45, 233 N.E.2d 589 (1968), paragraph one of the syllabus. See also Shick at
¶ 10.
In Sidle, the Ohio Supreme Court held that normal winter weather
conditions are obvious dangers. The Sidle Court explained, in relevant part:
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.
In Watts v. Richmond Run #1 Condo. Unit Owners Assn., 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 99031, 2013-Ohio-2695, this court further explained that the “no-
duty winter rule” as follows:
This rule, as it applies to natural winter conditions in Ohio, is even
more encompassing than the general open and obvious doctrine. This
is because “everyone is assumed to appreciate the risks associated with
natural accumulations of ice and snow and, therefore, everyone is
responsible to protect himself or herself against the inherent risks
presented by [them].” Brinkman v. Ross, 68 Ohio St.3d 82, 84, 623
N.E.2d 1175. “Thus, the issue of which party has superior knowledge or
a better appreciation of a natural accumulation of ice and snow on the
premises is generally irrelevant, since the invitee is charged with an
appreciation of those risks as a matter of law.” Miller v. Tractor Supply
Co., 6th Dist. No. H-11-001, 2011 Ohio 5906, ¶ 9, citing Brinkman at id.This has come to be called the “no-duty winter rule.”
Grimberg argues the open and obvious doctrine should not apply in
her case because she slipped on unnatural accumulations of ice and snow that were
caused by hidden defects in the parking lot. Indeed, there are two exceptions to the
“no-duty winter rule.” The first exception applies when the property owner or
occupier has actual or constructive notice that the natural accumulation of ice and
snow has created a “substantially more dangerous” condition than is obvious to an
ordinary person without such notice. Lobas v. FC Midtown L.L.C., 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 102063, 2015-Ohio-2399, ¶ 7. The second exception occurs when the
property owner or occupier actively permits or creates an unnatural accumulation
of ice or snow. Id.“An ‘unnatural’ accumulation of snow or ice is said to be ‘one that has
been created by causes and factors other than meteorological forces of nature such
as the inclement weather conditions of low temperature, strong winds and drifting
snow.’” Id. at ¶ 13, quoting Flint v. Cleveland Clinic Found., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos.
80177 and 80478, 2002-Ohio-2747, ¶ 18. Ice formed by a “freeze and thaw” cycle is
not an unnatural accumulation. Bailey v. St. Vincent DePaul Church, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 71629, 1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 1884 (May 8, 1997), citing Hoenigman
v. McDonald’s Corp., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 56010, 1990 Ohio App. LEXIS 131(Jan. 11, 1990). “By definition, an unnatural condition is man-made or man-caused.
Unnatural accumulations are caused by a person doing something that would cause
ice and snow to accumulate in an unexpected place or way.” Mubarak v. Giant
Eagle, Inc., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 84179, 2004-Ohio-6011, ¶ 19.
Grimberg argues a substantially more dangerous formation of ice and
snow occurred in the Sweet Cheeks parking lot because there were depressions in
the pavement of which appellees were aware. She also contends that improper
maintenance of the parking lot resulted in improper drainage that caused an
unnatural accumulation of ice in the area where she slipped. Inglis, Grimberg’s
expert, describes some of the depressions in his report.
However, it is well established that “no liability exists for minor
imperfections in the surface of a parking lot as those slight irregularities should be
reasonably anticipated.” Gordon v. Dollar Gen. Corp., S.D. Ohio No. 2:18-cv-939,
2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148839 (Aug. 18, 2020), citing Neumeier v. Lima, 3d Dist.
Allen No. 1-05-23, 2005-Ohio-5376, ¶ 14, citing Jeswald v. Hutt, 15 Ohio St.2d 224,
239 N.E.2d 37 (1968), paragraph two of the syllabus.
In Neumeier, the court explained that “[p]arking lots can develop
depressions from freezing and thawing and may also contain drainage areas and
sewer lids.” Neumeier at ¶ 16. Thus, the Neumeier Court observed that “as almost
every parking lot provides a spawning ground for defects in the blacktop, in the
absence of any substantial defect or any unusual attending circumstances, the trial
court cannot be faulted for deciding the case as a matter of law.” Id., citing Krause
v. Fred W. Albrecht Grocery Co., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 74468, 1999 Ohio App.
LEXIS 3122 (July 1, 1999), (finding that a jagged circular hole with a one-foot
circumference was the sort of irregularity a person could reasonably expect in a
parking lot). Due to the imperfect nature of parking lots, “persons cannot expect the
same flat surface found on a sidewalk.” Id., citing Sack v. Skyline Chili, Inc., 12th
Dist. Warren No. CA2002-09-101, 2003-Ohio-2226, ¶ 16.
In Mikula v. Tailors, 24 Ohio St.2d 48, 57, 263 N.E.2d 316 (1970), the
Ohio Supreme Court held that a seven-inch hole covered with snow constituted a
substantially dangerous condition that precluded application of the no-duty winter
rule. In Longenberger v. Collins Food, 52 Ohio App.2d 105, 368 N.E.2d 85 (9th
Dist. 1977), the Ninth District held that snow concealing a sudden, steep, and
unexpected incline also created a substantially dangerous condition. And in Miller
v. Biskind Dev. Corp., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 53470, 1988 Ohio App. LEXIS 544(Feb. 18, 1988), this court held that whether an eight-inch concrete barrier that was
obscured by a natural accumulation of snow constituted a substantially dangerous
condition was a question for the jury.
Grimberg has not alleged nor provided evidence of any significant
defects akin to the ones described in Mikula, Longenberger, or Miller. As previously
stated, Grimberg testified at deposition that she slipped on ice, but she made no
mention of any holes or barriers in the area where she fell. Moreover, in Miller, this
court held that “[e]ven if snow and ice covers a significant defect such as a hole
creating a hidden hazard, no liability exists where an injured party had knowledge
of the defect equal or superior to that of the owner or occupier of the premises.” Id.,citing DeAmiches v. Popczun, 35 Ohio St. 180, 299 N.E.2d 265 (1973); see also
Bowen v. Columbus Airport L.P., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 07AP-108, 2008-Ohio-
763, ¶ 12, quoting Mikula at 56 (“To the extent that a business invitee and the owner
of the premises have equal knowledge of the usual dangers resulting solely from
natural accumulations of ice and snow, the latter cannot be charged with actionable
negligence with regard to such dangers.”).
Although Inglis stated that Grimberg slipped and fell on “irregular
and slippery surfaces,” Grimberg did not identify any defect in the parking lot as a
cause of her fall. To the contrary, Grimberg alleged in the complaint that the sole
cause of her fall was the ice under freshly fallen snow that had not been plowed. The
complaint alleges, in relevant part:
13. On December 18, 2019, it snowed in the early morning hours and
the temperature was freezing thereby allowing any melted snow to
freeze.
14. Upon her arrival at the parking lot for Blackbird, the parking lot
had not been plowed to clear snow nor had any salt been scattered to
prevent ice from forming.
* * *
17. Ms. Grimberg proceeded to enter Blackbird as a business invitee
and purchased coffee and gift cards.
18. Ms. Grimberg exited Blackbird and walked back to her car when
she fell on ice which had been covered with the new snow from the early
morning precipitation.
(Complaint ¶ 13-14, 17-18.) The complaint does not allege any significant defect in
the parking lot or anything that caused an unnatural accumulation of ice or snow.
When asked at deposition what caused Grimberg to fall, she replied:
“I slipped on ice that was underneath freshly fallen snow.” (Grimberg depo. p. 24.)
Although Grimberg stated that she had previously observed “divots” or “valleys” and
“loose gravel” in the parking, she did not claim that there were “divots,” “valleys,” or
“loose gravel” in the specific area where she slipped and fell. Nor is there any
evidence that the “divots, valleys” or “loose gravel” were anything more than the
normal surface depressions that one regularly encounters in parking lots. In the
absence of any evidence that a significant defect created a substantially more
dangerous condition that proximately caused her fall, there is no basis on which to
apply one of the exceptions to the no-duty winter rule. Moreover, because Grimberg
was aware of the “divots,” “valleys,” and “loose-gravel” and there is no evidence that
appellees had superior knowledge of these alleged defects, appellees cannot be
charged with actionable negligence with regard to such “dangers.” DeAmiches at
183-184, Mikula at 56; Bowen at 12.
After reviewing the evidence in the record, we agree with the trial court
that Grimberg failed to establish an actionable claim for negligence against
appellees. Accordingly, we overrule the third and fourth assignments of error.
Judgment affirmed.
It is ordered that appellees recover from appellant costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to the common pleas court to carry
this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27
of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, JUDGE
FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE, III, P.J., CONCURS;
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., DISSENTS (WITH SEPARATE OPINION)
MARY EILEEN KILBANE, J., DISSENTING:
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion with respect to
Grimberg’s first assignment of error. I would sustain Grimberg’s first assignment of
error, reverse the trial court’s decision denying plaintiff-appellant Grimberg leave to
amend her complaint, and remand the case with an order granting her leave to do
so.
Civ.R. 15(A) provides that leave to amend a complaint “shall be freely
given when justice so requires.” “The spirit of the Civil Rules is the resolution of
cases upon their merits, not upon pleading deficiencies.” Peterson v. Teodosio, 34
Ohio St.32d 161, 175, 297 N.E.2d 113 (1973). While the decision to grant or deny
leave to amend a pleading is within the trial court’s discretion, where it is possible
that the plaintiff, by an amended complaint, may set forth a claim upon which relief
can be granted, “and it is tendered timely and in good faith and no reason is apparent
or disclosed for denying leave, the denial of leave to file such amended complaint is
an abuse of discretion.” Id.Here, Grimberg’s motion for leave to amend her complaint was timely,
was her first such request, and was filed months before trial was set to commence.
Further, the trial court did not provide any reason on which to base its denial of the
motion. Therefore, I would find that the trial court’s denial of Grimberg’s motion
for leave to amend her complaint was an abuse of discretion. I would reverse and
remand for the trial court to provide Grimberg leave to file an amended complaint.
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.