[Cite as Moore v. Behringer Harvard 600 Superior L.P., 2011-Ohio-6652.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 96926

SHARON MOORE

PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT 

vs. 

BEHRINGER HARVARD 600 SUPERIOR LP, 

ET AL. 

DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES 

JUDGMENT: 

AFFIRMED

Civil Appeal from the 

 Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court 

Case No. CV-737858 

BEFORE: Boyle, P.J., S. Gallagher, J., and E. Gallagher, J. 

 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: December 22, 2011 
2

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT

Michael J. O’Shea 

Ronald A. Annotico 

O’Shea & Associates Co., LPA 

Beachcliff Market Square 

19300 Detroit Road, Suite 202 

Rocky River, Ohio 44116 

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES

Robert P. Lynch 

Park Center Plaza II 

Suite 450 

6150 Oak Tree Boulevard 

Independence, Ohio 44131 

MARY J. BOYLE, P.J.: 

{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Sharon Moore, appeals the trial court’s decision 

granting summary judgment on her negligence claim in favor of defendant-appellee, 

Behringer Harvard 600 Superior LP (“Behringer Harvard”). She raises a single 

assignment of error: 

{¶ 2} “The trial court erred in granting appellee’s motion for summary judgment 

as there exists issues of material fact.” 

{¶ 3} We affirm. 

Procedural History and Facts
3

{¶ 4} On August 14, 2007, Moore fell upon entering an elevator in the parking 

garage located at the Fifth Third Center, owned and operated by Behringer Harvard. 

Moore alleges that her foot got caught on the edge of the elevator floor upon entering 

because the elevator floor was not level with the entrance floor. As a result of the 

misleveling, Moore fell and injured her arm. 

{¶ 5} Moore subsequently filed suit against Behringer Harvard and Otis Elevator 

Company (“Otis”), asserting negligence claims against both defendants. Otis is the 

exclusive maintenance provider for the elevators pursuant to a service agreement with 

Behringer Harvard. Otis was subsequently dismissed with prejudice from the case on 

November 23, 2010. 

{¶ 6} Behringer Harvard moved for summary judgment, arguing that it was 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law because it did not have any notice of the elevator 

misleveling. In support of its motion, Behringer Harvard attached, among other things, 

the affidavit of Richard Myers, regional field engineer for Otis. According to Myers’s 

affidavit, he is an expert in elevator maintenance and service and had reviewed Otis’ 

maintenance records concerning the elevator at issue (“Elevator No. G2”). Based on 

his review, Myers stated that, in the 12 months preceding the accident on August 14, 

2007, trained and qualified Otis mechanics performed regularly scheduled maintenance 

examinations of Elevator No. G2 pursuant to the maintenance agreement and that none 

of the examinations during this time frame revealed any maintenance problems with the 
4

elevator’s leveling devices. Myers further averred that “Otis did not receive notice of 

any maintenance problems with these components, nor were there any service calls or 

requests related to them during this time.” 

{¶ 7} Moore opposed the motion, arguing that Behringer Harvard’s general 

knowledge of “multiple mechanical problems with these elevators despite regular 

maintenance and service is sufficient to put [Behringer Harvard] on notice that the 

elevators present a danger to its passengers and some sort of warning was required.” In 

support of its brief in opposition, Moore cited to the deposition testimony and affidavit 

of Diana Lis, general manager of the Fifth Third Center for Behringer Harvard, for the 

proposition that the elevators had experienced some mechanical problems in the past. 

Moore further relied on her husband’s deposition testimony, who testified that, prior to 

Moore’s fall, “[t]here were times when the [garage] elevators would be down, one of 

‘em or both of them.” 

{¶ 8} The trial court granted Behringer Harvard’s motion for summary judgment, 

finding that Moore “failed to provide any direct evidence that the garage elevators, under 

the control of defendant Behringer Harvard, presented a dangerous condition (‘elevator 

leveling’) that defendant knew existed or should have known existed.” 

{¶ 9} From this order, Moore appeals. 

Standard of Review
5

{¶ 10} We review an appeal from summary judgment under a de novo standard. 

Baiko v. Mays (2000), 140 Ohio App.3d 1, 10, 746 N.E.2d 618. Accordingly, we afford 

no deference to the trial court’s decision and independently review the record to 

determine whether summary judgment is appropriate. N.E. Ohio Apt. Assn. v. 

Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1997), 121 Ohio App.3d 188, 192, 699 N.E.2d 534. 

{¶ 11} Civ.R. 56(C) provides that before summary judgment may be granted, a 

court must determine that “(1) no genuine issue as to any material fact remains to be 

litigated, (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and (3) it 

appears from the evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and 

viewing the evidence most strongly in favor of the nonmoving party, that conclusion is 

adverse to the nonmoving party.” State ex rel. Duganitz v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 77 

Ohio St.3d 190, 191, 1996-Ohio-326, 672 N.E.2d 654. 

{¶ 12} The moving party carries an initial burden of setting forth specific facts 

that demonstrate his or her entitlement to summary judgment. Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio 

St.3d 280, 292-293, 1996-Ohio-107, 662 N.E.2d 264. If the movant fails to meet this 

burden, summary judgment is not appropriate, but if the movant does meet this burden, 

summary judgment will be appropriate only if the nonmovant fails to establish the 

existence of a genuine issue of material fact. Id. at 293. 

Duty to Warn
6

{¶ 13} In her single assignment of error, Moore argues that a genuine issue of fact 

exists regarding whether Behringer Harvard should have warned her of the dangerous 

condition associated with the elevator. She contends that Behringer Harvard’s general 

knowledge of problems associated with all of the elevators was sufficient to put them on 

notice and require them to warn passengers. We find Moore’s argument unpersuasive. 

{¶ 14} In this case, it is undisputed that Behringer Harvard, as a common carrier, 

owed Moore the highest degree of care to provide a reasonably safe passage consistent 

with the practical operation of its business. “A passenger elevator is classified as a 

common carrier so that the duty owed to the passengers is to exercise the highest degree 

of care of which the situation is reasonably susceptible.” Norman v. Thomas Emery’s 

Sons, Inc. (1966), 7 Ohio App.2d 41, 43, 218 N.E.2d 344. A common carrier’s duty of 

the highest degree of care includes warning passengers about dangerous conditions that 

the carrier knows or should know exist. Conver. v. EKH Co., 10th Dist. No. 

02AP-1307, 2003-Ohio-5033, ¶33. 

{¶ 15} Here, Behringer Harvard moved for summary judgment and presented 

reliable, credible evidence that it did not have any knowledge of any mis-leveling 

problems in the 12 months preceding Moore’s fall. It further presented expert 

testimony verifying that Behringer Harvard regularly maintained the elevators and that 

there were never any signs of a misleveling malfunction with Elevator No. G2. Moore 

failed to rebut this evidence. 
7

{¶ 16} We find this court’s analysis in Hodges v. Gates Mills Towers Apt. Co. 

(Sept. 28, 2000), 8th Dist. No. 77278, to be analogous to the instant case. In Hodges, 

the plaintiff alleged that the elevator misleveled, causing her to fall and sustain injuries. 

She subsequently filed suit against the owner and operator of the elevator, who then 

moved for summary judgment on the grounds that it had no actual or constructive notice 

of any misleveling problems associated with the elevator. The trial court granted 

defendant’s motion for summary judgment and this court affirmed, noting that plaintiff 

failed to rebut defendant’s evidence and demonstrate that defendant “had actual or 

constructive notice of the mis-leveling problem.” Id. 

{¶ 17} This is the exact scenario in this case. Moore has simply failed to rebut 

Behringer Harvard’s evidence that it had neither actual nor constructive notice of a 

misleveling problem. 

{¶ 18} Moore argues, however, that knowledge of any known malfunction with 

the elevator in the past, such as a light out on a panel, a door not closing properly, or an 

elevator stopping at a different floor, is sufficient to create a genuine issue of material 

fact to preclude summary judgment. We disagree. Moore’s argument ignores the 

basic fact that none of those alleged malfunctions occurred in this case giving rise to her 

claim. And the mere fact that these malfunctions occurred in the past is insufficient to 

establish that Behringer Harvard should have known of a possible misleveling problem 

with Elevator No. G2. Indeed, Moore failed to present any evidence to support this 
8

claim. Instead, Moore’s argument essentially seeks to impose strict liability on 

Behringer Harvard because she was injured while using the elevator. This proposition, 

however, is not supported under the law. 

{¶ 19} Accordingly, the sole assignment of error is overruled. 

Judgment affirmed. 

It is ordered that appellees recover from appellant costs herein taxed. 

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment 

into execution. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of 

the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

 

MARY J. BOYLE, PRESIDING JUDGE 

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., and 

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR