[Cite as George v. Kroger Co. , 2013-Ohio-2929.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY BARBARA GEORGE, et al. : : Appellate Case No. 25552 Plaintiff-Appellant : : Trial Court Ca se No. 2011-CV-6064 v. : : THE KROGER COMPANY, et al. : (Civil Appeal from : ( Common Pleas Court) Defendant-Appellee : :

. . . . . . . . . . . O P I N I O N Rendered on the 3 rd day of July, 2013.

. . . . . . . . . . . MARY E. LENTZ, Atty. Reg. #0043985, a nd MICAH M. SIEGAL, Atty. Reg. #0085647, Gottschlich & Portune, LLP, 201 East Sixth Street, Dayton, Ohio 45402 Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellant RAY C. FREUDIGER, Atty. Reg. #0055564, Freund, Freeze & Arnold, Fifth Third Center, 1 South Main Street, Suite 1800, Dayton, Ohio 45402-2017 Attorney for Defendant-Appellee

. . . . . . . . . . . . . HALL, J., {¶ 1} Barbara George appeals from the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of appellee Kroger Company on a negligence complaint stemming from her trip and fall in 2

 a Kroger grocery store. 1 {¶ 2} George’s sole assignment of error challenges the trial court’s finding that a flat-bed dolly, the alleged cause of he r fall, was an open and obvious hazard. {¶ 3} The record reflects that George took a shopping cart upon entering the grocery store and went to the produce department. As she proceeded down an aisle, she saw permanent vegetable displays on shelves on the right and left -hand sides of the aisle. George also saw a temporary display piled high with watermelons to her left. She parked her cart near the watermelons and stepped to her left toward the lettuce, which she had seen in the permanent display on the left-hand side of the aisle. As she did so, George tripped and fell over an empty flat-bed dolly on wheels. She estimated that the handleless dolly was approximately two feet long by two feet wide and stood a three or four inch es off of the ground. The dolly was up against the temporary watermelon display. {¶ 4} George subsequently sued Kroger for ne gligence as a result of her fall. Kroger moved for summary judgment, arguing that the dolly was an open and obvi ous hazard. The trial court agreed. Finding no genuine issue of material fact, it sust ained Kroger’s motion. The trial court reasoned that the dolly was an open and obvious hazard as a ma tter of law, that no attendant circumstances negated the open a nd obvious nature of the hazard, and that an active-negligence exception to the open-and-obvious doctrine did not apply.

1 Barbara George’s husband, Michael, is also an appellant herein based on a derivative loss-of-consortium claim he asserted below

. The focus of the present appeal, however, is Barbara George’s negligence claim. {¶ 5} We review a grant of summary judgme nt de novo, which means that “we apply the standards used by the trial court.” Brinkman v. Doughty , 140 Ohio App.3d 494, 497, 748 3

 N.E.2d 116 (2d Dist.2000). Summary judgment is appr opriate when a trial court correctly finds “(1) that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact; (2) that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) that reas onable minds can come to but one conclusion, and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, who is entitled to have the evidence construed most strongly in his favor.” Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co. , 54 Ohio St.2d 64, 66, 375 N.E.2d 46 (1978). {¶ 6} On appeal, George contends the trial c ourt erred in entering summary judgment against her. She advances four ar guments in support. First, she cha llenges the trial court’s finding that the dolly was an open and obvious hazard as a matter of law. Sec ond, she claims the trial court erred in ignoring several attendant circumstances. Third, she asserts that placement of the dolly in her path constituted “active negligence” that obviated the open-and-obvious doctrine. Fourth, she argues that Kroger’s destruction of a videotape of the incident is itself an “issue of material fact that should have precluded summary judgment[.]” {¶ 7} To prevail on a negligence claim, “one seeking recovery must show the existence of a duty, the breach of the duty, and injury resulting proximately therefrom.” Strother v. Hutchinson , 67 Ohio St.2d 282, 285, 423 N.E.2d 467 (1981). The status of a person who enters the land of another define s the scope of the duty owed to the entrant. Gladon v. Greater Cleveland Reg. Transit Auth ., 75 Ohio St.3d 312, 315, 1996-Ohio-137, 662 N.E.2d 287. {¶ 8} Here George was a business invitee on Kroger’s property. As it pertains to business invitees, an owner’s duty is to keep th e premises in reasonabl y safe condition and to warn of known dangers. James v. Cincinnati , 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-070367, 2008-Ohio-2708, ¶ 24, citing Eicher v. U.S. Steel Corp ., 32 Ohio St.3d 248, 512 N.E.2d 1165 (1987). Liability 4

 arises when an owner has “superior knowledge of the particular danger which caused the injury” as an “invitee may not reasonabl y be expected to protect hims elf from a risk he cannot fully appreciate.” Uhl v. Thomas , 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2008- 06-131, 2009-Ohio-196, ¶13, citing LaCourse v. Fleitz , 28 Ohio St.3d 209, 210, 503 N.E.2d 159 (1986). {¶ 9} When a danger is open and obvious, a property owner owes no duty of care to individuals lawfully on the premises. Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., Inc ., 99 Ohio St.3d 79, 2003-Ohio-2573, 788 N.E.2d 1088, ¶14. “To be open and obvious, a hazard must not be concealed and must be discoverable by ordinary inspection.” (Citation omitted) Johnson v. Southview Hosp ., 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 25049, 2012-Ohio-4974, ¶9. The issue is not whether an individual observes a condition, but whether it is capable of being observed. Larrick v. J.B.T., Ltd. , 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 21692, 2007-Ohio-1509, ¶11. {¶ 10} George argues on appeal that she lacked any advance opportunity to perceive the dolly and avoid the danger. Specifically, she asserts (1) that Kroger employee Derrick Lehman placed the dolly against the waterm elon display seconds before she encountered it and (2) that the watermelon display concealed the dolly from view so that she lacked the ability to avoid it. Under these circumstances, she contends the trial court erred in concluding, as a matter of law, that the hazard presented by the dolly was open and obvious. {¶ 11} Upon review, we find George’s argument to be unpersuasive. George did testify during her deposition that Lehman admitted placing the dolly against the watermelon display only seconds before she fell. (George depo. at 48). Base d on the record before us, however, we fail to see how that fact made any difference in this case. When she started walking down the produce 5

 aisle, she was not in a position to see the do lly and could not say whether it was present. 2 ( Id . at 37-39). George also testified that she did not see Lehman place the dolly against the watermelon display after she parked her cart and turned toward it. Therefore, she agreed he must have placed the dolly in its position before she parked her cart. ( Id . at 42-43). Significantly, George admitted that once she parked her cart there was not hing obstructing her view of the dolly . ( Id . at 41). When asked why she could not see it, she responded: “I did not look down. I was looking at the lettuce.” (Emphasis added). ( Id . at 43).

2 Earlier in her deposition testimony, George suggested that th e dolly in fact was not present when she began walking down the aisle. See George depo. at 30 (“My basket was parked when I decided to ge t the lettuce to the left and prio r to that when I’m walking down the aisle I saw nothing because there was nothing there. The stock boy had told me he had just put that flatbed [dolly] there secon ds ago.”). Later in her deposition, she was asked to clarify this statement. She again appeared to claim the dolly was not present. ( Id . at 38). When pressed further, however, George admitted that she could not see whether the dolly was present when she began walking down the aisle. ( Id . at 38-39). She explained that she meant nothing was visible in the aisle itself and that she was unsure whether the dolly already had been placed against the watermelon display. ( Id .). {¶ 12} In our view, the foregoing testimony refutes George’s claim that the watermelon display concealed the dolly to such an extent that she lacked sufficient advance opportunity to observe the dolly and avoid tripping. The depos ition exhibits (which include sketches and pictures of the produce aisle, wa termelon display, and dolly) also persuade us that the tripping hazard presented by the dolly was open and obvious . Although the dolly lacked a handle, it was a relatively large object that reas onably should have been observed if, as George admitted, nothing was obstructing her view of it when she parked he r cart and turned toward it. Indeed, George’s own testimony reveals that she failed to see the dolly because she was looking at the lettuce, not because it wasn’t reasonably observable. {¶ 13} In reaching the foregoing conclusion, we re ject George’s claim that the trial court 6

 erroneously followed Colvin v. Kroger Co. , 12th Dist. Madison No. CA2005-07-026, 2006-Ohio-1151, instead of Kidder v. Kroger Co. , 2nd Dist. Montgomery No. 20405, 2004-Ohio-4261. In Colvin , the plaintiff encounter ed a four-foot-high “Slim Jim” display at the end of a grocery-store aisle. She rounded the corner to the right of the display and tripped on an empty, flat cart. The cart was three or four feet long and stood eight to ten inches high. The cart was “butted up against the display.” Although the car t had a waist-high handle, the record did not reflect whether the handle was against the display or was to the right of the display. Colvin at ¶2-3. The plaintiff “testified that as she was walking toward the lunch meats, she was not looking at the ground but instead was looking straight ahea d, trying to gauge where she needed to go to find the pepperoni.” Id. at ¶3. After reviewing the plainti ff’s deposition, as well as photographs and drawings, the Twelfth District affirmed the trial court’s entry of summary judgment for Kroger based on the ope n-and-obvious doctrine. {¶ 14} In Kidder , the plaintiff made a left-hand turn at the end of a frozen-food aisle. As she did so, she fell to the floor. She then saw wate r “all over the floor.” After her fall, the plaintiff noticed someone mopping several ai sles away. The plaintiff testifie d that she “might” have seen the water if she had been looking for water. Kidder at ¶3. On review, this court found a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the water on the floor was an open-and-obvious hazard. This court noted the clearness of the water and the ex istence of little advance opportunity to avoid the danger. This court also noted the plaintiff’s equi vocal testimony that she “might” have seen the water if she had been looking for it. Implicit in this statement was the converse, that she might not have seen the water even if she had been looking. Under such circumstances, this court found summary judgment inappropriate. Id. at ¶9. 7

 {¶ 15} In the proceedings below, the parties disputed whether the present case most closely resembled Colvin or Kidder . The trial court found Colvin the most analogous, reasoning: Here, the Court finds that Ms. George’s circumstances are practically identical to that of the Colvin Court. The dolly is substantially similar in length and width to the cart which is discussed in Colvin , even having similar properties of visibility (as compared with puddles of water). As stated by the Colvin court, the cart and dolly is not hidden from view by the mere fact that it is lower to the ground. A reasonable person would have s een the cart or the dolly, had they simply not “abandoned the duty imposed to look.” * * * Plaintiffs argue that Kidder , and by virtue of application of law Henry [v. Dollar Gen. Store , 2d Dist. Greene No. 2002-CA-47, 2003-Ohio-206,] are applicable to Ms. George’s injuries. In bot h, the plaintiffs enc ountered their hazard after either turning a corner or exiting a building, just as Ms. George turned the corner and encountered the dolly. * * * However, the court cannot agree. According to Ms. George’s own depos ition, Ms. George was not rounding a corner where the dolly happened to be parked. Ms. George parked her shopping cart “straight ahead,” turned her body left to face the opposite display of lettuce, and then took a step forward, conseque ntly tripping on the dolly. (George Deposition, p. 56-57). Ms. George also tes tified that once she faced the lettuce display, nothing obstructed her view. ( Id . at 41). Unlike Kidder and Henry , where the plaintiffs had no opportunity [to] eval uate the hazard, Ms. George had a clear opportunity to become aware of her su rroundings, since she was apparently 8

 required to park her shopping cart and change direction to reach the lettuce. In the words of the Second District, Ms. George simply “abandoned the duty imposed to look.” * * * (Citations omitted) (Doc. #65 at 7-8). {¶ 16} Upon review, we believe the facts before us are more an alogous to the flat cart in Colvin than the clear water in Kidder . But that determination is not dispositive, as Colvin and Kidder both have some distinguishing f acts. For example, the cart in Colvin had a waist-high handle, whereas the dolly in the present case lack ed a handle. The location of the flat cart in Colvin relative to the Slim Jim display also may have differed from the location of the dolly relative to the watermelon disp lay here. Without access to the photographs on which the Twelfth District relied, we cannot know. On the othe r hand, the object that caused the fall in Kidder was clear, whereas the dolly was not . Moreover, the plaintiff in Kidder admitted only that she “might” have seen the water if she had been looking fo r it, whereas George admitted that she did not see the dolly because she was not looking. The forego ing distinctions illustra te a fundamental point: “The open and obvious nature of a hazard on any pr emises is analyzed by a fact-speci fic inquiry and must be determined on a case by case basis. For this reason, previously decided open and obvious cases tend to be of limited value.” Colville v. Meijer Stores Ltd. , 2d Dist. Miami No. 2011-CA-011, 2012-Ohio-2413, ¶43 (D onovan, J., concurring); see also Henry at ¶16. Thus, our determination that the open-and-obvious doctrine a pplies here does not turn on a choice between Colvin and Kidder . Instead, it turns on our review of the evidence, including George’s deposition testimony, photographs, and drawings. That eviden ce persuades us the hazard presented by the dolly on which George tripped was ope n and obvious as a matter of law. 9

 {¶ 17} George’s argument about a ttendant circumstances fails to persuade us otherwise. “As a corollary to the open-and-obvious doctrine, [t his court has] recognized that there may be attendant circumstances [that] di vert the individual's attention from [a] hazard and excuse her failure to observe it.” Olivier v. Leaf & Vine , 2d Dist. Miami No. 2004 CA 35, 2005-Ohio-1910, ¶22. In her brief, George identifies what she be lieves are three attendant circumstances the trial court ignored: (1) the dolly’s placement “behind/beside a display such that it would not become visible to those to whom it might pose a danger until they were already tripping over it,” (2) Lehman’s placement of the dolly against the wate rmelon display “within seconds of her tripping over it,” and (3) the fact that she tripped “within her first step toward the permanent lettuce case.” She also claims the trial court erred in its analysis of a fourth attendant circumstance, Lehman’s presence in the area where he was working with produce on another dolly. {¶ 18} Having reviewed the record, we find no attendant circumstances that reasonably would have diverted George’s a ttention from the dolly and excused her failure to observe it. The first three circumstances she cites are not things that diverted her attention from the dolly. The placement of the dolly, the timing of its placement, and the fact that she trippe d after taking a step are not “distractions” at all. The only arguable attendant circumstance mentioned by George is the presence of Lehman. But George did not testify that Lehman’s activities distracted her from observing the dolly on which she tripped. We fi nd no evidence to support such a conclusion. In addition, attendant circumstances have been found not to include common or ordinary events.
See , e.g. , Carter v. Miles Supermarket , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 95024, 2010-Ohio-6365, ¶27. This includes the routine restocking activity of a grocery employee. Isaacs v. Meijer, Inc ., 12th Dist. Clermont No. CA 2005-10-098, 2006-Ohio-1439, ¶19. 10

 {¶ 19} We are equally unpersuaded that Lehman ’s placement of the dolly next to the watermelons constituted “active negligence” precl uding application of the open-and-obvious doctrine. Arguing to the contrary, George cites Simmons v. Am. Pacific Ent., L.L.C. , 164 Ohio App.3d 763, 2005-Ohio-6957, 843 N.E.2d 1271 (10th Dist.). In Simmons , an employee placed a dock plate between the plaintiff’s delivery truck and a loading dock to cover a gap. After the plaintiff unloaded his freight, the employee removed the plate. The plaintiff remained in the truck to rearrange his own cargo. With his back to the loading dock and unaware the plate had been removed, the plaintiff stepped off the truck and fell in the gap. Although the plaintiff acknowledged he would have seen the gap if he had looked, the Tenth District found the open-and-obvious doctrine ina pplicable. It reasoned: Premises tort claims where the alleged negligence arises from static or passive conditions, such as preexisting latent defects, are legally distinct from claims averring active negligence by act or omission.* * * The distinction between static and dynamic forms of negligence is legally significant, because it directly correlates to the two separate and distinct duties an occupier owes its business invitees: (1) static conditions relate to the owner’s duty to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition, including an obliga tion to warn its invitees of latent or hidden dangers, while (2) active negligen ce relates to the owner’s duty not to injure its invitees by negligent ac tivities conducted on th e premises. * * * The open-and-obvious doctrine eliminates a premises occupier’s duty to warn a business invitee of static danger s on the premises if the dangers are known to the invitee or are so obvious and appare nt to the invitee that he or she may 11

 reasonably be expected to discover them and protect himself or herself against them. * * * The rationale is that an ope n and obvious danger serves as its own warning. Open and obvious dangers are t hose not hidden, concealed from view, or undiscoverable upon ordinary inspection. * * * A person does not need to observe the dangerous condition for it to be an “open and obvious” condition under the law; rather, the determinative issue is whether the condition is observable. * * * Even in cases where the plaintiff did not actually notice the condition until after he or she fell, this court has found no duty to exist in cases where the plaintiff could have seen the condition if he or she had looked. * * * Here, the trial court f ound that APE did not have a duty to warn [the plaintiff] of the injury-causing gap b ecause the condition was open and obvious as a matter of law. Although [the plaintiff] had his back to the gap and was not aware of its existence, [he] acknowledged that he would have seen the gap had he turned and looked. Plaintiffs’ negligence claim, however, was not predicated solely on a failure to warn of a preexisting static hazard; plaintiffs allege that [the employee] negligently removed the dock plate while [the plaintiff] was still in the process of unloading freight. The evidence of record in fact demonstrates that [the employee] removed the dock plate some time before [the plaintiff’s] injury, thus creating an issue of fact concerning [the employee’s] actions and whether they constitute an act of negligence to which the open-and- obvious doctrine would not apply. While the amount of time elapsing between [the employee’s] act and [the plaintiff’s] injury may be significant in determining whether [the employee’s] action had 12

 become a static condition on the premises, the record evidence makes sufficiently clear that when the facts are construed in a light most favorable to plaintiffs, reasonable minds could find that [the employee’s] active conduct caused [the plaintiff’s] injury, thus rendering th e open-and-obvious doctr ine inapplicable. (Citations omitted). Id. at ¶20-22. {¶ 20} George contends the present case is analogous to Simmons . Like the employee
in Simmons , who removed the dock plate shortly before the plaintiff fell, George argues that Kroger employee Lehman placed the dolly in her path only seconds before she tripped and fell. She argues that this “active negligence” by Lehman precluded application of the open-and-obvious doctrine. At a min imum, she contends the record reveals a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Lehman committed active negligence within the meaning of Simmons

. {¶ 21} Upon review, we find George’s reliance on Simmons misplaced. In Simmons , the plaintiff had used the dock plat e while unloading freight for th e employee. That being so, the plaintiff arguably had no reason to look behind him to be sure the plate re mained in place as he rearranged his own cargo. Having encountered th e plate moments before, the plaintiff reasonably may have assumed it remained in place absent any warning from the employee. Unlike Simmons , the record contains no evidence that George ha d traversed the area around the watermelon display before her fall. When she began walking down the aisle, she was not in a position to see the dolly and could not say whether it already was presen t. (George depo. at 37-39). She knows only that Lehman must have placed the dolly in its pos ition sometime before sh e parked her cart and turned toward the lettuce. ( Id . at 42-43). Unlike Simmons , the record does not reflect any prior observation of the area around the watermelon disp lay that might excuse George from looking 13

 again. From her perspective, then, it mattered not whether the dolly had been placed against the watermelon display seconds earlier or hours earlier. Either way, sh e would have tripped because she “was looking at the lettuce.” ( Id . at 43). Because the timing of Lehman’s placement of the dolly against the watermelon display had no bearing on George’s fall, we reject her argument that the accident was attributable to active negligence rather than a static hazard. The rationale underlying the distinction drawn in Simmons has no applicability here. {¶ 22} Finally, we reject George’s claim that Kr oger’s destruction of a videotape of the incident precluded the entry of summary judgment against her. This argument concerns store manager Martin Crump’s deposition testimony that he had revi ewed video footage of the produce department from a security camera. According to Crump, he “didn’t see anything on there” because the camera “did not cover where [G eorge] fell.” (Crump. depo. at 30, 56). Crump testified that he did not know what George looked like. ( Id . at 60). As a result, he could not say whether he saw her anywhere on the tape. ( Id . at 57). He knew, however, that he did not see the fall depicted on the tape. ( Id .). Crump explained that the tape no longer existed because videos are overwritten every thirty days pursuant to store policy. ( Id . at 55). {¶ 23} On appeal, George argues that destructi on of the tape supports an inference that its contents were adverse to Kroger. George further argues that this inference was sufficient to defeat Kroger’s summary-judgment motion. We rej ect this argument for at least two reasons. First, George did not raise this argument in opposition to Kroger’s summary-judgment motion, despite the fact that Crump was deposed on April 18, 2012 and she filed her opposition memorandum on June 21, 2012. 3 We cannot fault the trial c ourt for failing to rely on an

3 George raised the destruction-of-evidence issue only in the co ntext of seeking leave to file an amended complaint adding a 14

 argument George did not raise. Second, the infe rence George mentions does not arise absent “a strong showing of malfeasance.” Roetenberger v. Christ Hosp ., 163 Ohio App.3d 555, 2005-Ohio-5205, 839 N.E.2d 441, ¶25 (1st Dist.2005). No such showing was made here. {¶ 24} Based on the reasoning set forth above, we overrule George’s assignment of error and affirm the judgment of the M ontgomery County Common Pleas Court.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . WELBAUM, J., concurs. FROELICH, J., concurs in judgment only. Copies mailed to: Mary E. Lentz Micah M. Siegal Ray C. Freudiger Hon. Gregory F. Singer

spoliation claim. The trial court denied leave to amend, and George has not challenged that ruling on appeal. Her memorandum op posing summary judgment did not address the destruction-of-evidence issue. ( See Doc. #44).