577 N.E.2d 147
No. 85-09326.Court of Claims of Ohio.
Decided February 23, 1988.
Page 217
David M. Paris, for plaintiffs.
Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., Attorney General, an Elizabeth Tarpy Kerns, Assistant Attorney General, for defendant.
GUY G. CLINE, Judge.
On January 11, 1985, plaintiff Janice Anderson, then a student at Cleveland State University (herein “CSU”), was attending a course in communications on the second floor of the Main Classroom Building. After class, the plaintiff exited the classroom and proceeded down stairwell E. Plaintiff alleges that she tripped and fell over the curled-up edge of an undersized doormat, which had been placed in a larger recessed area, and struck her forehead on a steel door. Several fellow classmates of plaintiff had preceded her across the area, but none of them had stumbled over the doormat. As a result of the incident, plaintiff sustained a laceration to her forehead, which started to bleed. She was then escorted to the Chester Building for medical treatment. While at the Chester Building the plaintiff contacted her sister, Mary Copec, who arrived several minutes later.
Within ten minutes of the occurrence of this incident, CSU Police Officer Vince Colbert arrived, noticed a laceration on plaintiff’s forehead, and transported the plaintiff and her sister to the hospital. Officer Colbert stated that
Page 218
both prior to and during their travel to the hospital the plaintiff stated to him that she had “tripped over her own feet” while approaching the door. (Colbert’s testimony; see CSU January 11, 1985 police report.) Officer Colbert immediately recorded this statement in his report upon returning from the hospital; however, plaintiff and her sister deny such a conversation took place.
Several days after the incident, plaintiff returned to the area to take pictures of the alleged accident scene and found an undersized mat with a curled-up edge that had been placed in a larger recessed area in stairwell E. At trial, the plaintiff stated stairwell E was poorly lighted and that she could not see the mat prior to stumbling over it. The building custodian, however, testified he cleaned the pertinent area, including the mat, each evening; the area was well-lighted; and that he would not have left a mat with a curled-up edge in place. Dean Keller, Director of the Physical Plant Facilities at CSU, stated the mat in the recessed area could be flattened by stepping on it and that there had been no previous complaints about the mat.
Issues
In the instant case, the issues are as follows: whether the plaintiff fell over her own feet while approaching the door or whether her injury was proximately caused by tripping over a doormat in stairwell E while exiting the Main Classroom Building; whether the placing of the undersized mat, with the alleged curled-up edge, in a larger recessed area was negligent and the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries; and, if so, the extent of plaintiff’s injuries.
Law
CSU is operated by the state of Ohio and, thus, this court has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter.
The plaintiff claims that ANSI Standard 825.4 (Regulations for Disabled Students) is applicable. This standard requires that “all floors, corridors and lines of egress shall have slip-resistant surfaces.” However, CSU is not specifically designated for disabled students and there has been no showing that disabled students attended the communications class; also, the plaintiff is not a disabled student. Therefore, Standard 825.4 is not applicable to the instant case.
The plaintiff, as a student at said university, was an invitee. The defendant, therefore, had a duty to exercise ordinary care to see that the premises were safe for an invitee using the premises in the exercise of due care. In addition, CSU had the duty to provide notice of any danger of which
Page 219
it had knowledge or, by using ordinary care, should have discovered. See 76 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d (1987) 18, Premises Liability, Section 7. Nevertheless, the defendant is not an insurer as to all accidents and injuries to such invitees. S.S. Kresge Co. v. Fader (1927), 116 Ohio St. 718, 158 N.E. 174 Presley v. Norwood (1973), 36 Ohio St.2d 29, 65 O.O.2d 129, 303 N.E.2d 81.
The Restatement of the Law 2d, Torts, which sets forth the general rule in reference to the duty owed to an invitee, states:
“A possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm caused to his invitees by a condition on the land if, but only if, he
“(a) knows or by the exercise of reasonable care would discover the condition, and should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk of harm to such invitees, and
“(b) should expect that they will not discover or realize the danger, or will fail to protect themselves against it, and
“(c) fails to exercise reasonable care to protect them against the danger.” Restatement of the Law 2d, Torts (1965) 215-216, Section 343.
The burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to show that the condition which caused the injury was unreasonably dangerous; that the possessor knew of or should have discovered the condition; and, that the defendant failed to warn the invitee or take necessary precautions to protect the invitee from danger. Unreasonably dangerous conduct would involve an unreasonable risk of foreseeable harm to invitees such as the plaintiff. Risks are unreasonable if a reasonable person would find it necessary to take precautions against them.
Findings
The class attended by the plaintiff consisted of approximately one hundred students. The evidence indicates that several students had preceded the plaintiff down stairwell E and across the doormat without incident. The mat had not been reported by any other student to be in a dangerous condition. The court is of the opinion that Officer Colbert’s testimony concerning the plaintiff’s statement is credible, especially since he recorded the facts immediately after the event. Also, the housekeeping assistant superintendent stated that if he had seen a mat in the condition described by the plaintiff he would have replaced it. The plaintiff’s version of her fall could have been affected by her examination of the area sometime later.
In view of the above, the court finds that the plaintiff has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the exact location of her fall and the cause thereof, as well as the fact that the defendant’s negligence, if any, in placing
Page 220
an undersized doormat in a larger recessed area proximately caused her fall and subsequent injuries. Accordingly, the court further finds that the defendant was not negligent. If this court found that defendant was negligent, arguendo, it is the court’s opinion that such negligence was not the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries, and was less than fifty percent of the cause of plaintiff’s fall.
In finding that the plaintiff has not sustained her burden of proof, this court enters judgment for the defendant and against the plaintiff. Costs are assessed to the plaintiff.
Judgment for defendant.
GUY G. CLINE, J., retired, of the Pickaway County Probate/Juvenile Court, sitting by assignment.