COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 70575 KATHERINE FAULHABER : ACCELERATED DOCKET : Plaintiff-appellant : : JOURNAL ENTRY -vs- : AND : OPINION CLEVELAND CLINIC FOUNDATION : : PER CURIAM Defendant-appellee : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: JANUARY 30, 1997 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from Court of Common Pleas Case No. CV-286413 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED. Motion 75982 is overruled. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellant: For Defendant-Appellee: KAREN M. MORELL, ESQ. ANDREW A. KABAT, ESQ. The Bevelin House GEORGE S. COAKLEY, ESQ. 2913 Clinton Avenue REMINGER & REMINGER Cleveland, Ohio 44113 113 St. Clair Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44114 - 2 - PER CURIAM: Plaintiff Katherine Faulhaber appeals from the judgment of the trial court which awarded summary judgment to defendant Cleveland Clinic Foundation in plaintiff's action for injuries sustained when she fell in the facility's parking garage. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. On March 16, 1995, plaintiff filed this action against the Cleveland Clinic Foundation (hereafter referred to as the "Clinic") alleging that on June 21, 1993, she tripped over a rubber expansion joint on the fourth floor of the Euclid Avenue parking garage and sustained injuries. Plaintiff charged that the Clinic negligently inspected and maintained the area, negligently failed to warn of an unsafe condition, and negligently failed to provide safe ingress and egress from the structure. The Clinic denied liability and set forth a counterclaim for recovery of unpaid medical expenses. Discovery revealed that plaintiff had been to the Clinic on five or six prior occasions, and always parked in the Euclid Avenue parking garage. On the date of her fall, plaintiff was accompany- ing a friend to his medical appointment, and they parked near the expansion joint on the fourth floor. Plaintiff saw the expansion joint as she got out of the car, and she had no difficulty seeing inside the garage. As she walked toward the elevator, she saw the expansion joint and knew it was there. She did not notice that it was raised, approximately one and one-half inch, however. Plain- tiff and her companion both stumbled over the joint, and plaintiff - 3 - sustained injuries. After falling, plaintiff looked at the expan- sion joint and realized that it was elevated. On December 16, 1995, the Clinic moved for summary judgment and maintained that there was no genuine issue of material fact that the rubber expansion joint is an open and obvious, and known to plaintiff as she traversed the parking garage. The trial court 1 granted the Clinic's motion and plaintiff now appeals, assigning a single error for our review. Plaintiff's assignment of error states: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO DEFENDANT CLEVELAND CLINIC FOUNDATION BECAUSE GENUINE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT EXIST AS TO WHETHER THE EXPANSION JOINT DEFECT IN THIS CASE PRESENTED AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS HAZARD FOR PEDESTRIANS. Within this assignment of error, plaintiff maintains that summary judgment was erroneously granted as the expansion joint was not an open and obvious hazard. As an initial matter, we note that the existence of a duty in a negligence action is a question for the courts to decide. Mussivand v. David (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 314, 318. We further note that in Stinson v. Cleveland Clinic Foundation (1987), 37 Ohio App.3d 146, 148, this court held that a hospital owes its invitee a duty of ordinary or reasonable care in main- taining the premises, including the means of ingress and egress, in 1 Defendant has moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely. This motion is overruled pursuant to App.R. 4. - 4 - a reasonably safe condition so that persons are not unreasonably exposed to danger. Nonetheless, property owners are relieved from liability from harm resulting from "open and obvious" hazards. See, e.g., Simmers v. Bentley Construction Co. (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 642, 644. The Simmers Court explained: The rule relieving a defendant from liability for harm resulting from 'open and obvious' hazards is a legal doctrine that has developed in suits against property owners by a person injured when he comes on the property. The 'open and obvious' doctrine states that an owner or occupier of property owes no duty to warn invitees enter- ing the property of open and obvious dangers on the property. Sidle v. Humphrey (1968), 13 Ohio St.2d 45, 42 O.O.2d 96, 233 N.E.2d 589, at paragraph one of the syllabus; Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy, Inc. (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 203, 18 OBR 267, 480 N.E.2d 474. The rationale behind the doctrine is that the open and obvious nature of the hazard itself serves as a warning. Thus, the owner or occupier may reasonably expect that persons entering the premises will discover those dangers and take appropriate measures to protect themselves. Sidle, supra. Accord Sidle v. Humphrey (1968), 13 Ohio St.2d 45, paragraph one of the syllabus ("An occupier of premises is under no duty to protect a business invitee against dangers which are known to such invitee or are so obvious and apparent to such invitee that he may reasonably be expected to discover them and protect himself against them.") From the record developed in this matter, we hold that the trial court properly entered summary judgment for the Clinic. Plaintiff testified that she saw it as she approached it. Although she did not detect the slight increase in elevation in the - 5 - expansion joint before her fall, she stated that it was obvious to her afterward. Affirmed. - 6 - It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its costs herein taxed. The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. _________________________________ JAMES D. SWEENEY, CHIEF JUSTICE _________________________________ ANN DYKE, JUDGE _________________________________ TERRENCE O'DONNELL, JUDGE N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 27. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the .