Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Leasing Hotline
No Duty to Warn of Snow and Ice
Where a danger is open and obvious, no duty to warn exists; a landlord fulfills its duty to take responsibility for snow and ice maintenance by contracting with an outside company to remove the snow and ice. Brockman v. Terminal Warehouse, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 23258, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth Appellate District, Summit County, Jan. 24, 2007.
Brockman was employed by Terpco, which leased space from Terminal Warehouse. Brockman suffered injuries when he slipped and fell on ice in a parking lot owned by Terminal Warehouse. He commenced an action against Terminal Warehouse. Terminal Warehouse moved for summary judgment, which was granted. The appellate court affirmed. It held that Brockman was a business invitee on Terminal Warehouse property and that under Ohio law an owner is not liable for injuries to business invitees who slip and fall on natural accumulations of ice and snow. Furthermore, Terminal Warehouse was not liable because it entered into a snowplowing contract between itself and Fertig Construction and had, therefore, fulfilled its duty to take responsibility for grounds maintenance. Moreover, the open and obvious doctrine obviated the duty to warn and acted as a complete bar to any negligence claims.
No Duty to Warn of Snow and Ice
Where a danger is open and obvious, no duty to warn exists; a landlord fulfills its duty to take responsibility for snow and ice maintenance by contracting with an outside company to remove the snow and ice. Brockman v. Terminal Warehouse, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 23258, Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth Appellate District, Summit County, Jan. 24, 2007.
Brockman was employed by Terpco, which leased space from Terminal Warehouse. Brockman suffered injuries when he slipped and fell on ice in a parking lot owned by Terminal Warehouse. He commenced an action against Terminal Warehouse. Terminal Warehouse moved for summary judgment, which was granted. The appellate court affirmed. It held that Brockman was a business invitee on Terminal Warehouse property and that under Ohio law an owner is not liable for injuries to business invitees who slip and fall on natural accumulations of ice and snow. Furthermore, Terminal Warehouse was not liable because it entered into a snowplowing contract between itself and Fertig Construction and had, therefore, fulfilled its duty to take responsibility for grounds maintenance. Moreover, the open and obvious doctrine obviated the duty to warn and acted as a complete bar to any negligence claims.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
'Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P.': A Tutorial On Contract Liability for Real Estate Purchasers
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
CoStar Wins Injunction for Breach-of-Contract Damages In CRE Database Access Lawsuit
Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.