In the case of Stager v. Kettering, 2022-Ohio-4552, the appellate court held that a city was not liable for the injuries sustained by an individual who was attending an outdoor amphitheater owned and operated by the city when the individual was pushed over a retaining wall as a result of a fight between other concert attendees as the “open-and-obvious” doctrine applied and, in any event, no city employee engaged in any negligent acts in the performance of a “propriety function.”
While there was no dispute that owning and operating an outdoor amphitheater was a propriety function, a dispute existed in this case as to whether the city’s employees were negligent. The injured individual argued that the city’s employees negligently maintained the retaining wall by failing to provide protection such as a railing to prevent the individual from falling, failed to warn the individual of the danger of falling, and determined the number and location of security guards and stewards working at the event. In response, the city argued that any danger of falling over the low retaining wall without a railing was open and obvious, the city’s employees had no duty to warn anyone of this self-evident possibility, and no city employees could have known that a fight would occur or that this individual would be pushed over the retaining wall. The appellate court agreed with the city.
In support of its decision in favor of the city, the appellate court explained that the city was under no duty to protect invitees from dangers “which are known to such invitee or are so obvious and apparent to such invitee that [the invitee] may reasonably be expected to discover them and protect [the invitee] against them.” 2022-Ohio-4552 at ¶ 16. Nonetheless, the appellate court further explained that the narrow R.C. 2744.02(B)(2) “propriety function” exception to R.C. Chapter 2744 immunity did not apply in this case as there was no evidence of employee negligence in this case.
WARNING: This holding was based upon the undisputed material facts in this case. The outcome may have been much different had the facts been different.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always-changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.