AKRON, Ohio (Legal Newsline) - Summary judgment against a woman suing after tripping and falling at an Ohio restaurant was affirmed on March 30.
The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling from the Court of Common Pleas County of Medina, Ohio.
Marlene C. Matus sued The Jacts Group, which operates the restaurant where her incident occurred. She also named Golden Dawn Enterprises, LLC, the company that built the venue.
Matus and a friend were out to lunch as a hostess directed them to a booth in an elevated seating area toward the back of the restaurant. On the way there, the hostess told them to watch their step as they had to navigate around a single stair.
A friend of Matus pointed out a caution sign against the wall that read, “CAUTION STEP DOWN.” There was also a rope light at the edge of the step. Still, as they were leaving the restaurant after their meal, Matus “walked right off” the step in question, according to the opinion, and injured her heel. She claimed the step wasn’t an obvious danger and filed a lawsuit. The lower court ruled in favor of the defendants, and Matus appealed.
In her appeal, she argued that the lower court shouldn’t have barred her expert from speaking on proximate cause as it relates to the Ohio Building Code.
“Even if the trial court erred in failing to admit the testimony, any error was harmless, particularly in light of Ms. Matus’ other arguments which are overruled below,” wrote Judge Donna J. Carr.
Judge Lynne Callahan and Jennifer Hensal concurred. They all agreed that the trial court jury found that the defendants weren’t negligent, and that wouldn’t have changed with Matus’ expert testimony.
She also took issue with a jury instruction that said, “A customer entering a building who safely traverses a condition on the way in[to] a premises cannot claim that it was unreasonably dangerous when traversing the same condition upon exiting the premises upon exiting the building. An occupant of a property owes no duty to protect business visitors from open and obvious dangers on the property."
But when asked if any side took issue with the instruction, Matus didn’t share any concern with this portion, so she waived her right to take issue with that sentence in the appeal.
Because she didn’t show why the lower court erred when it didn’t grant her a new trial, or judgment notwithstanding the verdict, her motion for that was denied as well.