Jones v. Malabar Farm State Park , 2011 Ohio 4798 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as Jones v. Malabar Farm State Park, 
    2011-Ohio-4798
    .]
    Court of Claims of Ohio
    The Ohio Judicial Center
    65 South Front Street, Third Floor
    Columbus, OH 43215
    614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263
    www.cco.state.oh.us
    MARGARET L. JONES
    Plaintiff
    v.
    MALABAR FARM STATE PARK
    Defendant
    Case No. 2011-02999-AD
    Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    {¶1}    On February 3, 2011, plaintiff, Margaret Jones, suffered property damage
    when ice fell from a building owned by defendant, Malabar Farm State Park, and struck
    the    parked car plaintiff had been driving.                 Specifically, the hood, fenders, and
    windshield, were damaged by ice and snow falling from the roof of defendant’s visitor’s
    center where plaintiff was working.            Plaintiff contended her car was damaged as a
    proximate result of negligence on the part of defendant in maintaining a dangerous
    condition on state park premises. Consequently, plaintiff filed this complaint seeking to
    recover $1,236.45 the cost for repairs to the vehicle and reimbursement of the filing fee.
    The $25.00 filing fee was paid.
    {¶2}    Defendant denied any liability in this matter. Defendant suggested plaintiff
    was aware of the “open and obvious condition of ice sliding off the overhanging eaves
    of the visitor center and could have taken precaution to protect against the potential
    dangers of this known condition.” Therefore, the state park was not charged to protect
    plaintiff from hazards that were open and obvious.
    {¶3}    An owner of land generally owes a duty to individuals such as plaintiff to
    maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition. Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy,
    Inc. (1985), 
    18 Ohio St. 3d 203
    , 18 OBR 267, 
    480 N.E. 2d 474
    . However, a land owner
    ordinarily owes no duty to business invitee plaintiffs to remove natural accumulations of
    ice and snow on the premises or to warn the invitees of dangers associated with these
    natural accumulations. Brinkman v. Ross, 
    68 Ohio St. 3d 82
    , 
    1993-Ohio-72
    , 
    623 N.E. 2d 1175
    . Everyone is assumed to appreciate the risks presented by such snow and ice
    accumulations and consequently, everyone is expected to bear responsibility for
    protecting himself from such risks presented by natural accumulations of ice and snow.
    Brinkman.
    {¶4}   Conversely, liability may result if the premises owner permits an unnatural
    accumulation of ice or snow to exist. See Lopatkovich v. City of Tiffin (1986), 
    28 Ohio St. 3d 204
    , 207, 28 OBR 290, 
    503 N.E. 2d 154
    ; Tyrrell v. Investment Associates, Inc.
    (1984), 
    16 Ohio App. 3d 47
    , 16 OBR 50, 
    474 N.E. 2d 621
    . In Porter v. Miller (1983), 
    13 Ohio App. 3d 93
    , 13 OBR 110, 
    468 N.E. 2d 134
    , the court clarified the distinction
    between an unnatural and natural snow accumulation stating:                    “‘Unnatural’
    accumulation must refer to causes and factors other than the inclement weather
    conditions of low temperatures, strong winds and drifting snow, i.e., to causes other
    than meteorological forces of nature. By definition, then, the ‘unnatural’ is the man-
    made, the man-caused; extremely severe snow storms or bitterly cold temperatures do
    not constitute ‘unnatural’ phenomena.” at page 95.
    {¶5}   In Myers v. Forest City Enterprises, Inc. (1993), 
    92 Ohio App. 3d 351
    , 
    635 N.E. 2d 1268
     appeal dismissed, 
    69 Ohio St. 2d 1213
    , 
    1994-Ohio-408
    , 
    633 N.E. 2d 1136
    , the court further addressed the state of unnatural accumulations, noting: “In
    cases involving an unnatural accumulation of ice and snow, a plaintiff must show that
    the defendant created or aggravated the hazard, that the defendant knew or should
    have known of the hazard, and that the hazardous condition was substantially more
    dangerous than it would have been in the natural state (citations omitted). Melting snow
    that refreezes into ice is natural, not an unnatural accumulation of ice.” at page 353-354.
    {¶6}   Based on the evidence in the instant claim, the court concludes the ice
    and snow that damaged plaintiff’s car was a natural accumulation.               Ordinarily,
    defendant would be relieved from legal liability for injury resulting from this natural
    occurrence. However, there are exceptions to this general rule. If the landowner is
    shown to have had notice, actual or implied, that a natural accumulation of snow and ice
    on the premises has created a condition substantially more dangerous than an invitee
    should have anticipated by reason of the knowledge of conditions prevailing generally in
    the area, negligence may be shown. Paschal; Gober v. Thomas & King, Inc. (June 27,
    1997), Montgomery App. No. 16248. Ohio’s freeze and thaw cycles, which commonly
    cause icy conditions, are natural accumulations absent a showing of negligence on the
    part of the landowner. Hoenigman v. McDonald’s Corp. (Jan. 11, 1990), Cuyahoga
    App. No. 56010.     For liability to attach the landowner must have some superior
    knowledge of the condition. LaCourse v. Fleitz (1986), 
    28 Ohio St. 3d 209
    , 28 OBR
    294, 
    503 N.E. 2d 159
    .       Despite the agreements asserted in plaintiffs’ response,
    insufficient evidence supporting this proposition has been presented.       In a reply to
    plaintiff’s response filed by defendant, the defendant asserts it breached no duty of care
    owed to plaintiff pursuant to the holding in Thomas v. Ohio University, Ct. of Cl. No.
    2010-07776-AD, 
    2011-Ohio-1946
    . Plaintiff, in the present claim, has failed to establish
    defendant owed her a duty to remove natural accumulations of snow and ice from the
    roof of the visitor’s center. Therefore, absent a duty, negligence cannot be proven.
    Court of Claims of Ohio
    The Ohio Judicial Center
    65 South Front Street, Third Floor
    Columbus, OH 43215
    614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263
    www.cco.state.oh.us
    MARGARET L. JONES
    Plaintiff
    v.
    MALABAR FARM STATE PARK
    Defendant
    Case No. 2011-02999-AD
    Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert
    ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION
    Having considered all the evidence in the claim file and, for the reasons set forth
    in the memorandum decision filed concurrently herewith, judgment is rendered in favor
    of defendant. Court costs are assessed against plaintiff.
    ________________________________
    DANIEL R. BORCHERT
    Deputy Clerk
    Entry cc:
    Margaret L. Jones                                 Charles G. Rowan
    3381 Pleasant Valley Road                         Department of Natural Resources
    Lucas, Ohio 44843                                 2045 Morse Road, D-3
    Columbus, Ohio 43229-6693
    SJM/laa
    5/17
    Filed 6/15/11
    Sent to S.C. reporter 9/21/11
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2011-02999-AD

Citation Numbers: 2011 Ohio 4798

Judges: Borchert

Filed Date: 6/15/2011

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014