Peyton v. Univ. of Akron

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as Peyton v. Univ. of Akron, 2006-Ohio-7212.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO JOHN M. PEYTON : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2005-08808-AD UNIVERSITY OF AKRON : MEMORANDUM DECISION Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : {¶ 1} On March 4, 2005, plaintiff, John M. Peyton, suffered property damage when ice fell from a building owned by defendant, University of Akron, and struck plaintiff s parked car. Specifically, the convertible top and rear window of plaintiff s vehicle were damaged by ice falling from defendant s Edwin J. Thomas Plaintiff, who Chevrolet Performing worked Cavalier in Arts Thomas Convertible defendant s building. Hall Hall, in a ( Thomas had parked parking Hall ). his space 1989 next to After completing his work shift on March 4, 2005, plaintiff returned to his parked car and discovered the vehicle s convertible top and rear window had been damaged by falling ice structure. proximate emanating Plaintiff cause maintaining a of from the contended negligence dangerous roof his on condition of car the on the was part of Thomas damaged Hall as defendant University a in premises. Consequently, plaintiff filed this complaint seeking to recover $1,100.00 for repairing his vehicle. Plaintiff submitted three repair estimates for $699.21, $987.44, and $750.00. The $25.00 Case No. 2005-08808-AD -2- MEMORANDUM DECISION filing fee was paid. {¶ 2} Defendant denied any liability in this matter. Defendant pointed out plaintiff s property damage was the result of a falling natural accumulation of ice and snow and therefore, the University was not charged to protect plaintiff from hazards normally associated with such natural accumulations. See Brinkman v. Ross (1993), 68 Ohio St. 3d 82, 623 N.E. 2d 1175. Defendant denied plaintiff s property damage was related to any negligent act or omission on the part of the University. {¶ 3} An owner of land generally owes a duty to individuals such as plaintiff to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition. Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy, Inc. (1985), 18 Ohio St. 3d 203, 480 N.E. 2d 474. However, a land owner ordinarily owes no duty to business invitee plaintiffs to remove natural accumulations of ice and snow on the premises or to warn the invitees of dangers associated with these natural accumulations. Brinkman, supra. Everyone is assumed to appreciate the risks presented by such snow and ice accumulations and consequently, everyone is expected to bear responsibility for protecting himself from such risks presented by natural accumulations of ice and snow. Brinkman, supra. {¶ 4} Conversely, liability may result if the premises owner permits an unnatural accumulation of ice or snow to exist. See Lopatkovich v. City of Tiffin (1986), 28 Ohio St. 3d 204, 207, 503 N.E. 2d 154; Tyrrell v. Investment Associates, Inc. (1984), 16 Ohio App. 3d 47, 474 N.E. 2d 621. In Porter v. Miller (1983), 13 Ohio App. 3d 93, 468 N.E. 2d 134, the court clarified Case No. 2005-08808-AD the distinction -2- MEMORANDUM DECISION between accumulation stating: an unnatural and natural snow Unnatural accumulation must refer to causes and factors other than inclement weather conditions of low temperatures, causes other definition, caused; strong than then, and meteorological the extremely winds, unnatural severe snow drifting forces is the storms snow, of i.e., nature. man-made, or the bitterly to By mancold temperatures do not constitute unnatural phenomena. {¶ 5} In Myers v. Forest City Enterprises, Inc. (1993), 92 Ohio App. 3d 351, 635 N.E. 2d 1268 appeal dismissed (1994), 69 Ohio St. 2d 1213, 633 N.E. 2d 1136, the court further addressed the state of unnatural accumulations, noting: In cases involving an unnatural accumulation of ice and snow, a plaintiff must show that the defendant created or aggravated the hazard, that the defendant knew or should have known of the hazard, and that the hazardous condition was substantially more dangerous than it would have been in the natural state. Melting snow that refreezes into ice is natural, not an unnatural accumulation of ice. {¶ 6} Based on the evidence in the instant claim, the court concludes the ice and snow that damaged plaintiff s car was a natural accumulation. from legal occurrence. liability Ordinarily, defendant would be relieved for injury resulting from this natural However, there are exceptions to this general rule. If the landowner is shown to have had notice, actual or implied, that a natural accumulation of snow and ice on the premises has created a condition substantially more dangerous than an invitee Case No. 2005-08808-AD -2- MEMORANDUM DECISION should have anticipated by reason of the knowledge of conditions prevailing generally in the area, negligence may be shown. Paschal, supra; Gober v. Thomas & King, Inc. (1997), Montgomery App. No. 16248, 1997 Ohio App. LEXIS 3564. Northeastern Ohio s freeze and thaw cycles, which commonly cause icy conditions, are natural accumulations absent a showing of negligence on the part of the landowner. Hoenigman v. McDonald s Corp. (Jan. 1990), Cuyahoga App. No. 56010, 1990 Ohio App. LEXIS 131. liability to attach the knowledge of the condition. St. 3d 209, proposition 503 has N.E. been 2d landowner must have some 11, For superior LaCourse v. Fleitz (1986), 28 Ohio 159. No presented. evidence Plaintiff, supporting in the this present claim, has failed to establish defendant owed him a duty to remove natural building. proven. accumulations Therefore, absent of a snow duty, from the negligence University cannot be Case No. 2005-08808-AD -2- MEMORANDUM DECISION IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO JOHN M. PEYTON : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2005-08808-AD UNIVERSITY OF AKRON : ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Having considered all the evidence in the claim file and, for the reasons concurrently defendant. set forth herewith, in the judgment is memorandum rendered decision in filed favor Court costs are assessed against plaintiff. of The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. _____________________________ DANIEL R. BORCHERT Deputy Clerk Entry cc: John M. Peyton 143 Hollinger Avenue Akron, Ohio 44302 Plaintiff, Pro se M. Celeste Cook Associate General Counsel Office of the General Counsel The University of Akron For Defendant Case No. 2005-08808-AD Akron, Ohio 44325-4706 RDK/laa 5/24 Filed 7/6/06 Sent to S.C. reporter 3/22/07 -2- MEMORANDUM DECISION

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.