Court Opinion

ID: 9364507
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-19 17:07:51.346643+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:38.616695
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Richie v. Home Depot, 2023-Ohio-68.]
                              COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                             EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

DANA RICHIE,                                     :

                Plaintiff-Appellant,             :
                                                            No. 111394
                v.                               :

THE HOME DEPOT,                                  :

                Defendant-Appellee.              :

                               JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
                RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: January 12, 2023

              Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court
                                 Case No. CV-20-932561

                                           Appearances:

                Tyrone E. Reed, for appellant.

                Curtain Law, LLC, and Cynthia K. Curtin; McVey &
                Parsky, LLC, and Jonathan R. Sichtermann, pro hac vice,
                for appellee.

ANITA LASTER MAYS, A.J.:

                  Plaintiff-appellant Dana Richie (“Richie”) appeals the trial court’s

granting of the defendant-appellee The Home Depot’s (“Home Depot”) motion for

summary judgment. We affirm the trial court’s decision.
I.    Facts and Procedural History

               On March 21, 2019, Richie entered Home Depot with the intention of

purchasing plastic pipes (“PVC”).      According to Richie, after heading to the

plumbing section and attempting to lift a PVC pipe, the pipe slipped from his hand

and fell onto his foot. Richie claimed that there was a greasy or oily substance on

the pipe that caused it to slip. After the pipe hit Richie’s shoe, he proceeded to the

checkout and purchased the pipe, where he informed the store associate that the

pipe fell on his foot. At that time, Richie did not inform the associate that there was

a substance on the pipe.

               Richie completed a customer incident statement, where he wrote

“reaching for 3" x 10' PVC pipe from shelf and it fell on my foot — right foot.” Under

the section, “Describe Nature of Injury or Extent of Damages,” Richie did not write

anything. Richie also denied any medical attention.

               On May 13, 2020, Richie filed a complaint against Home Depot,

alleging that Home Depot was negligent. In Richie’s complaint, he does not allege

that there was a greasy or oily substance on the PVC pipe. Instead, he claims that

Home Depot “was negligent and reckless when it knew or should have known that

the improper stacking of the pipes could result in the Plaintiff and other customers

being injured.”   Richie complaint No. 113342580.         However, during Richie’s

deposition, he stated:
      So we went to the Home Depot to obtain a couple, well, it was one
      three inch by ten feet PVC pipe. And they had it on a shelf, and they
      had them — this particular Home Depot had the types standing
      straight up. And it was like on a three-foot shelf type deal. And when
      I was trying to take it down, it seemed like it must have had WD-40 or
      something like that, you know, and it just slipped right through my
      hands and hit the floor.

Richie deposition at p. 35

              On December 3, 2021, Home Depot filed a motion for summary

judgment and argued that Richie “can point to no genuine issue of material fact

relative to a breach of any duty owed to [him] by Defendant Home Depot.” Home

Depot Motion for Summary Judgment No. 4974723. In Richie’s response to Home

Depot’s motion for summary judgment, he states that because there was an oily

substance on the pipe, it slipped out of his hand and broke his toe.

              On March 9, 2022, the trial court granted Home Depot’s summary

judgment motion stating:

      The court, having considered all of the evidence and having construed
      the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, finds there is no
      genuine issue as to any material fact, that reasonable minds can come
      to but one conclusion and that Defendant is entitled to judgment as a
      matter of law. Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d
      64, 66, 375 N.E.2d 46 (1978).

Journal entry No. 121724822 (Mar. 9, 2022).

              Richie filed this timely appeal, assigning one error for our review:

      1.     The trial court erred in granting Defendant’s motion for
             summary judgment when all facts were against summary
             judgment and in Plaintiff’s favor.
II.   Summary Judgment

      A.     Standard of Review

               “This court reviews a trial court’s ruling on a motion for summary

judgment de novo, applying the same standard as the trial court.” Buonopane v. M.

Co., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 111524, 2022-Ohio-4210, ¶ 11, citing Grafton v. Ohio

Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 105, 671 N.E.2d 241 (1996). “We accord no deference

to the trial court’s decision and independently review the record to determine

whether summary judgment is appropriate.” Id.

      Under Civ.R. 56, summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine
      issue exists as to any material fact and, viewing the evidence most
      strongly in favor of the nonmoving party, reasonable minds can reach
      only one conclusion that is adverse to the nonmoving party, entitling
      the moving party to judgment as a matter of law.

Id.

               “On a motion for summary judgment, the moving party carries an

initial burden of identifying specific facts in the record that demonstrate his or her

entitlement to summary judgment.” Id. at ¶ 12, citing Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d

280, 292-293, 662 N.E.2d 264 (1996). “If the moving party fails to meet this burden,

summary judgment is not appropriate; if the moving party meets this burden, the

nonmoving party must then point to evidence of specific facts in the record

demonstrating the existence of a genuine issue of material fact for trial.” Id., citing

Dresher at 293. “If the nonmoving party fails to meet this burden, summary

judgment is appropriate.” Id.
      B.     Law and Analysis

              In Richie’s sole assignment of error, he argues that the trial court

erred in granting Home Depot’s summary judgment motion. Richie argues that the

facts support his claim that Home Depot was negligent because they had

constructive knowledge of the hidden dangers of not doing a better job of cleaning

the PVC pipes on the display shelf. “To establish actionable negligence, a plaintiff

must show the existence of a duty, a breach of that duty, and an injury proximately

caused by the breach.”     Buonopane at ¶ 14, citing Texler v. D.O. Summers

Cleaners & Shirt Laundry Co., 81 Ohio St.3d 677, 680, 693 N.E.2d 271 (1998). “‘“If

there is no duty, then no legal liability can arise on account of negligence. Where

there is no obligation of care or caution, there can be no actionable negligence.”’”

Id., quoting Jeffers v. Olexo, 43 Ohio St.3d 140, 142, 539 N.E.2d 614 (1989), quoting

70 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d, Negligence, Section 13, at 53-54 (1986).

              “The status of a person who enters another’s property defines the

scope of the legal duty owed to that person.” Buonopane, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga

No. 111524, 2022-Ohio-4210, at ¶ 15, citing Gladon v. Greater Cleveland Regional

Transit Auth., 75 Ohio St.3d 312, 315, 662 N.E.2d 287 (1996). Richie was a business

invitee of Home Depot. “Property owners owe invitees a duty of ordinary care in

maintaining the premises in a reasonably safe condition, including warning them of

latent or hidden dangers to avoid unnecessarily and unreasonably exposing them to
risk of harm.” Id., citing Naso v. Victorian Tudor Inn, L.L.C., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga

No. 110652, 2022-Ohio-1065, ¶ 9.

               Richie argues that there was an oily substance on the PVC pipe, which

caused him to drop it. He also argues that Home Depot was negligent in cleaning

the pipes. Home Depot states that they did not have knowledge that there was an

oily substance on the pipes. “When the defendant can show they had no actual

knowledge of the condition, the plaintiff must show they had constructive

knowledge in order to maintain the negligence claim.” Cintron-Colon v. Save-A-

Lot, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100917, 2014-Ohio-4574, ¶ 15, citing Stepp v. Getgo

Gas & Grocery, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98325, 2012-Ohio-5184. “To show the

owner had constructive knowledge of the condition, the plaintiff is required to show

that the length of time the hazard existed created the ‘inference that the failure to

warn against it or remove it was a breach of ordinary care.’” Id. at ¶ 17, quoting Stepp

at ¶ 2.

               After a review of the record, we determined that Richie has not

demonstrated that an oily substance was on the PVC pipe, nor has he sufficiently

demonstrated that if in fact the oily substance existed, it was on the pipe for enough

time to allow Home Depot to clean it up or warn customers. “This court has

recognized that ‘an injured party may not rely on mere speculation and conjecture

to attempt to demonstrate that a foreign substance had been present for a sufficient

period of time to give a shopkeeper or his employees constructive notice of it.’”
Calabrese v. Romano’s Macaroni Grill, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 94385, 2011-Ohio-

451, ¶ 19, quoting Barnes v. Univ. Hosp. of Cleveland, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga

No. 66799, 1994 Ohio App. LEXIS 3231 (July 21, 1994). See also Nice v. Meridia

Hillcrest Hosp., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 79384, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 3417 (Aug. 2,

2001) (“An owner has constructive knowledge of defects which existed for a

sufficient length of time and would have been revealed by a reasonable inspection of

the premises.”).

              Additionally, the evidence reveals at the time of the incident, Richie

did not inform any store associate of the oily substance on the PVC pipe, nor did he

include the information on the incident report. In Richie’s original complaint filed

in the trial court, he stated, “[T]he Plaintiff was walking in an aisle, when some

improperly stacked pipes fell and struck Plaintiff.”             Richie complaint

No. 113342580. In Richie’s complaint, he did not state that he grabbed one pipe

that slipped from his hand and landed on his foot due to an oily substance. Instead,

the complaint reveals that he stated that the pipes were improperly stacked and

many pipes fell and struck him.

              Due to the fact that Richie has not demonstrated that Home Depot

had constructive notice that there was an oily substance on the PVC pipe that caused

his injury, we cannot state that the trial court erred when it granted summary

judgment in favor of Home Depot.

              Therefore, Richie’s sole assignment of error is overruled.
              Judgment affirmed.

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

      The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

      It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the

common pleas 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.

______________________________________
ANITA LASTER MAYS, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, J., and
MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCUR