RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206

File Name: 09a0094p.06

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________

BONNIE SULLIVAN; JOHN SULLIVAN,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

OREGON FORD, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

X

-

-

-

-

>

,

-

-

-

N

No. 08-3673

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Ohio at Toledo.

No. 07-01877—James G. Carr, Chief District Judge.

Argued: March 6, 2009

Decided and Filed: March 12, 2009 

Before: KENNEDY, MARTIN, and COLE, Circuit Judges.

_________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Robert B. Thompson, HARRINGTON, THOMPSON, ACKER &

HARRINGTON, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellants. Andrew J. Ayers, BAHRET &

ASSOCIATES CO., Holland, Ohio, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Robert B. Thompson,

Laurence C. Acker, HARRINGTON, THOMPSON, ACKER & HARRINGTON, Chicago,

Illinois, for Appellants. Andrew J. Ayers, Robert J. Bahret, BAHRET & ASSOCIATES

CO., Holland, Ohio, for Appellee.

_________________

OPINION

_________________

COLE, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs-Appellants Bonnie and John Sullivan (the

“Sullivans”) appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of DefendantAppellee Oregon Ford, Inc., d/b/a Mathews Ford Oregon (“Mathews Ford”) on their claims

for damages arising out of a slip-and-fall incident at Mathews Ford on June 27, 2005. The

Sullivans allege that Mathews Ford breached its duty to exercise ordinary care in

1
No. 08-3673 Sullivan v. Oregon Ford, Inc. Page 2

maintaining the premises in a reasonably safe condition. Mathews Ford moved for and the

district court granted summary judgment because the Sullivans failed to show that Mathews

Ford was responsible for the alleged hazard and failed to produce evidence that the hazard

existed for a sufficient length of time to provide constructive notice. See Sullivan v. Oregon

Ford, Inc., 552 F. Supp. 2d 681 (N.D. Ohio 2008).

This Court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo. Barrett v. Whirlpool

Corp., No. 08-5307, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 3443, at *14 (6th Cir. Feb. 23, 2009) (citing

Miller v. Admin. Office of the Courts, 448 F.3d 887, 893 (6th Cir. 2006)). The moving party

is entitled to summary judgment “if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on

file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the

movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see also Anderson

v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986). We view factual evidence in the light most

favorable to the non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor.

See Henderson v. Walled Lake Consol. Sch., 469 F.3d 479, 487 (6th Cir. 2006).

We have carefully reviewed the parties’ briefs, the applicable law, and the district

court’s order granting summary judgment to Mathews Ford. We agree that no genuine

issues of material fact exist and that defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Because the district court’s decision is well-reasoned, we need not expand on its analysis.

Therefore, we AFFIRM the grant of summary judgment to Mathews Ford for the reasons

stated in the district court’s opinion.