Employee Overcomes Common Slip & Fall Defenses

Employee's Slip and Fall Incident

In February 2011, Thurman Trowbridge, a security guard at Franciscan University, slipped after stepping off a step. He hit his head, fracturing two vertebrae and sustaining other significant injuries.

Mr. Trowbridge claimed he did not see any signs indicating the recently mopped area was wet. He noted the area was shiny but was unsure if it was wet.

Trial Court Proceedings

University Granted Summary Judgment

Mr. Trowbridge filed an action against the University for his injuries. The University moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted.

The court ruled that Mr. Trowbridge "assumed the risk" of slipping and falling.

Seventh District Court of Appeals

Arguments Against Summary Judgment

Mr. Trowbridge appealed the trial court's decision to the Seventh District. He argued that the dangerous condition was not "open and obvious" because it was unclear whether the floor was wet or merely glossy from waxing.

He further contended that even if he assumed some risk, summary judgment was improper. A jury, he argued, should determine the University's comparative fault.

Understanding Applicable Law

Elements of Negligence

This action was based on a theory of negligence, which has four elements:

• Duty
• Breach
• Causation
• Damages

In Ohio, a premises owner, such as the University, has a general duty to exercise ordinary care in maintaining the premises in a reasonably safe condition. This means the owner must not create dangerous conditions and must warn of latent or concealed dangers.

However, business invitees, like Mr. Trowbridge, are expected to take reasonable precautions against injury and avoid "open and obvious" dangers. A business owner has no duty to warn against such dangers. The key is whether the condition is objectively observable, not whether the plaintiff actually saw it.

Assumption of Risk Defense

Assumption of risk is a defense in negligence actions. It is defined as a plaintiff’s consent to or acquiescence in an appreciated, known, or obvious risk to safety.

Assumption of risk requires full knowledge of a condition that is patently dangerous, as well as voluntary exposure to the hazard.

This defense is related to comparative negligence, which is generally a question of fact for the trier of fact to decide (See Brady-Fray v. Toledo Edison Co., 6th Dist. No. L-02-1260, 2003-Ohio-3422).

Appellate Court's Decision

Open and Obvious Doctrine

Mr. Trowbridge argued to the Appellate Court that the open and obvious doctrine did not bar his action. He contended there were disputed facts regarding whether the wetness of the area was objectively obvious.

The Court agreed, finding no definitive testimony or evidence that the floor's shiny appearance objectively indicated an open and obvious danger.

Comparative Fault Determination

Mr. Trowbridge also argued that even if he assumed some risk, a jury question remained regarding the University's comparative fault. The Appellate Court concurred.

The court held that implied assumption of risk is typically a matter for the trier of fact. They found genuine issues of material fact in dispute concerning the parties' comparative negligence.

Significance for Plaintiffs

This case represents a favorable outcome for plaintiffs' attorneys. It provides a precedent that can be applied to various common fact patterns in slip and fall cases.