In the case of Oliver v. Fox’s Food, L.L.C., 2023-Ohio-1551, an appellate court held that a store was not liable for a shopper’s slip and fall when the store had no duty to remove the natural accumulation of snow and ice in front of the store.
In this case, the shopper argued that (1) the store had a contractual obligation to clear snow and ice from the storefront and (2) the store had a duty to remove the snow or at least warn about the risk as the danger was not open and obvious. In response, the store argued that (1) the shopper did not raise the claim of breach of contract in the complaint so the claim could not be argued before the court and (2) there is no clear and obvious duty when the “no-duty winter rule” applies. The appellate court agreed with the store.
In support of its decision in favor of the store, the appellate court explained that if a claim is not presented as a claim in the complaint, then it cannot be raised for the first time to the appellate court. The appellate court further explained that “the no-duty winter rule assumes everyone will appreciate and protect themselves against risks associated with natural accumulations of ice and snow.” 2023-Ohio-1551 at ¶ 17.
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.