Ohio High Court Affirms Use of ‘Open and Obvious’ Hazard Defense

The Supreme Court of Ohio has ruled that when a plaintiff’s injuries arise from a hazardous condition on a defendant’s property that is in violation of the Ohio Basic Building Code, the property owner may assert the common law defense that the hazardous condition was “open and obvious,” and that the owner had no legal duty to protect an invitee against it.

The Court’s 6-1 decision in Lang v. Holly Hill Motel, Inc. affirmed a ruling by the 4th District Court of Appeals. Dorothy Lang had sued Holly Hill Motel on behalf of the estate of her deceased husband, Albert Lang. Mr. Lang, who suffered from emphysema and carried a portable oxygen tank, fell while his wife was helping him ascend a two-step stairway in front of the couple’s motel room. Mr. Lang suffered a broken hip that required his hospitalization. He died three months later.

The complaint asserted that Mr. Lang’s fall resulted from the riser height of the two steps he had to climb at the motel being several inches higher than the maximum permitted by the Ohio Basic Building Code, and from the lack of a handrail, also required by code.

Holly Hill argued that because the height of the steps and absence of a handrail were open and obvious conditions, the motel could not be held negligent.

The opinion may be found online at www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-Ohio-2495.pdf.