Court Opinion

ID: 9875692
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 22:39:52.462535+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:04.325131
License: Public Domain

KLATT, J., dissenting.
  

   {¶ 24} Because I would affirm the trial court's judgment, I respectfully dissent.
  

   {¶ 25} Contrary to the majority decision, I do not believe the trial court erred when it applied the open and obvious doctrine to bar appellant's claim. In my view, the hazard associated with using a laundry bag drawstring and a bed frame hook as an improvised method to keep a large heavy window raised is an open and obvious hazard.
  

   {¶ 26} Moreover, even if the open and obvious doctrine did not apply, the trial court accepted the magistrate's factual determination that appellant's conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. Based upon this finding, there was no need for the trial court to undertake a comparative-fault analysis.
  

   {¶ 27} For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.