COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA No. 71988 LORAINNE MCCORNELL Plaintiff-appellant JOURNAL ENTRY vs. AND FLORENCE BRIDGES, ET AL. OPINION Defendant-appellees DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT December 18, 1997 OF DECISION CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS Civil appeal from Court of Common Pleas Case No. CV-30166 JUDGMENT AFFIRMED DATE OF JOURNALIZATION APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellant: For defendant-appellees: DEBRA J., DIXON, ESQ. ALAN B. GLASSMAN, ESQ. JAMES L. DEESE, ESQ. 14650 Detroit Avenue, #450 Dixon & Ours Lakewood, OH 44107-9946 700 West. St. Clair Avenue, #216 Cleveland, OH 44113 - 2 - PATTON, J. Plaintiff-tenant Lorainne McCornell brought this negligence action against defendant-landlords Florence and Levy Bridges alleging they negligently failed to salt the driveway of their rental property after first using a snow blower to remove two inches of snow. The trial court apparently rejected plaintiff's claim that defendants had an implied duty to salt the driveway based upon a prior course of conduct and granted summary judgment. The sole assignment of error contests this ruling. The following facts are viewed in a light most favorable to plaintiff. See Civ.R. 56(C). Plaintiff rented the lower portion of a duplex owned by defendants. She left her apartment to visit her sister. At the time she departed for her sister's residence, no snow had fallen. Plaintiff remained at her sister's house for about four hours, during which time it began to snow. Snow fell as plaintiff left her sister's house, and she arrived at her apartment without incident. At the time she parked her car, she estimated about an inch or two of snow had accumulated, but defendant had used a snowblower to remove snow from the driveway. Plaintiff noticed defendant had not salted the driveway, so she walked very carefully *** because I noticed that, you know, it was looked like it could have been very slippery ***. Plaintiff entered her apartment, turned on her television set and had a bite to eat. About an hour later, she noticed a winter weather advisory being broadcast on the television and decided to go out to her car and set the column lock on her car. She - 3 - successfully set the lock and turned to go back inside. As she came around the back of her car, she slipped and fell, injuring her knee. Summary judgment shall not be rendered unless it appears from the evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and that conclusion is adverse to the non-moving party. See Civ.R. 56(C). In order to establish actionable negligence, one must show the existence of a duty, a breach of the duty and injury proxi- mately resulting therefrom. Federal Steel & Wire Corp. v. Ruhlin (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 171, 173. Generally speaking, a landowner has no duty to remove natural accumulations of ice and snow because the dangers from natural accumulations of ice and snow are ordinarily so obvious and apparent that an occupier of premises may reasonably expect that a business invitee on his premises will discover and protect himself against them. *** Sidle v. Humphrey (1968), 13 Ohio St.2d 45, paragraph two of the syllabus. This rule applies regardless whether injuries are sustained by a business invitee or a tenant. Plaintiff argues defendants impliedly created a duty to salt the driveway because they had done so in the past. To support her argument, she cites the first paragraph of the syllabus to Oswald v. Jeraj (1946), 146 Ohio St. 676, which states: The owner of an apartment building who re- serves possession and control of the common approaches which provide ingress to and egress from such building to and from the public sidewalk and who assumes the duty of keeping such approaches clean and free from ice and snow is required to exercise ordinary care to - 4 - render such common approaches reasonably safe for use by the tenants. In LaCourse v. Fleitz (1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 209, 210-211, the court found any distinction between a business invitee and a tenant immaterial [w]here the lease itself imposes no contractual duty on the landlord to clear accumulated ice and snow from the common areas, we see no compelling reason to impose it judicially on a landlord when we have refused to recognize any such duty on the part of business owners and occupiers. Id. at 211. Plaintiff did not submit any evidence to show she and defendants had any agreement concerning defendant's duty to salt the driveway. Absent such evidence, defendants owed no duty to remove the natural accumulations of snow and ice that formed on the driveway. As the court stated in Brinkman v. Ross (1993), 68 Ohio St.3d 82, 85: Living in Ohio during the winter has its inherent dangers. *** However, we find that Ohio law imposed no such obligation [to shovel and salt a sidewalk as a courtesy to social guests] upon appellants, and we are unwilling to extend homeowner liability to cover slip- and-fall occurrences caused entirely by natu- ral accumulations of ice and snow. To hold otherwise would subject Ohio homeowner to the perpetual threat of (seasonal) civil liability any time a visitor sets foot on the premises, whether the visitor is a friend, a door-to- door salesman or politician, or even the local `welcome wagon.' Because plaintiff fully appreciated the dangers attendant to the freshly fallen snow, the trial court did not err by finding defendants did not breach any duty to salt the driveway. The assigned error is overruled. - 5 - Judgment affirmed. - 6 - It is ordered T e reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court direthat appellees recover of appellant their costsherein taxed.he Court finds t execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. DAVID T. MATIA, P.J. PORTER, J., CONCUR. JUDGE JOHN T. PATTON 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 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 .