APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas C.P.C. No. 11CVC-04-5200
Vickery, Riehl and Alter, and Lawrence A. Riehl, for appellants.
Crabbe, Brown & James, LLP, Vincent J. Lodico and Robert C. Buchbinder, for appellee.
(¶1} Plaintiffs-appellants, John Hall and Amy Hall, husband and wife, appeal from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas granting defendant-appellee, Circle K's, motion for summary judgment.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
(¶2} Amy Hall ("appellant"), slipped and fell on an accumulation of ice and snow on the sidewalk in front of a Circle K gas station owned and operated by appellee. The undisputed facts reveal that on April 25, 2011, appellant stopped on her way to work to purchase gas. It was approximately 5:30 a.m. on a very cold morning. After filling her gas tank, appellant walked toward the front of the building to pay for her purchase. When appellant reached the sidewalk leading to the front door, she slipped on ice and fell, suffering an injury to her right wrist.
(¶3} On April 26, 2011, appellants' filed their complaint against appellee, alleging negligence and loss of consortium. On September 24, 2012, the trial court granted appellee's motion for summary judgment.
II.ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
(¶4} Appellants have appealed to this court, asserting the following assignments of error:
[I.] The Trial Court committed reversible error in granting summary judgment on the grounds that Plaintiff-Appellant Amy Hall fell on a natural accumulation of ice and snow.
[II.] The Trial Court committed reversible error in granting summary judgment on the grounds that Defendant-Appellee's agents rendered the accumulation unforeseeably dangerous to her or unnatural in derivation.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
(¶5} Appellate review of summary judgment motion is de novo. Helton v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 123 Ohio App.3d 158, 162 (4th Dist.1997). "When reviewing a trial court's ruling on summary judgment, the court of appeals conducts an independent review of the record and stands in the shoes of the trial court." Mergenthal v. Star Bank Corp., 122 Ohio App.3d 100, 103 (12th Dist.1997). We must affirm the trial court's judgment if any of the grounds raised by the movant at the trial court are found to support it, even if the trial court failed to consider those grounds. Coventry Twp. v. Ecker, 101 Ohio App.3d 38, 41-42 (9th Dist.1995).
(¶6} Summary judgment is proper only when the party moving for summary judgment demonstrates that: (1) no genuine issue of material fact exists, (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and (3) reasonable minds could come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that party being entitled to have the evidence most strongly construed in that ...