COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 72468 ROSA BANKS : ACCELERATED DOCKET : Plaintiff-appellant JOURNAL ENTRY : AND : OPINION -vs- : :PER CURIAM GREATER CLEVELAND REGIONAL : TRANSIT AUTHORITY Defendant-appellee DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT NOVEMBER 6, 1997 OF DECISION CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING Civil appeal from Court of Common Pleas Case No. CV-314608. JUDGMENT Reversed. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION APPEARANCES: FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: Lawrence W. Corman, Esq. Douglas A. Gonda, Esq. 2240 Illuminating Building 615 Superior Avenue 55 Public Square - Suite #2240 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 PER CURIAM: In this action against defendant-appellee Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority ( RTA ) for injuries suffered in a slip 2 and fall while exiting a bus on a snowy day, plaintiff-appellant Rosa Banks appeals from the trial court order which granted RTA's motion for summary judgment. Appellant argues in her sole assignment of error that issues of material fact remain concerning whether at the time of the incident RTA exercised the necessary degree of care owed by a common carrier toward its passenger. This court finds her argument persuasive. Summary judgment is appropriate only when the defendant directs the trial court's attention to evidence in the record which demonstrates the plaintiff cannot establish the elements necessary to sustain her cause of action. Dresher v. Burt (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 280; Norris v. Ohio St. Oil Co. (1982), 70 Ohio St.2d 1. To establish a cause of action in negligence, plaintiff must prove a duty owed to her, defendant's breach of that duty, proximate causation, and resulting damages. Dietrich v. Community Traction Co. (1964), 1 Ohio St.2d 38 at 43.; Keister v. Park Centre Lanes (1981), 3 Ohio App.3d 19. The duty of a common carrier toward its passengers is a high one which must be exercised in a manner consistent with the practical operation of the system. Dietrich v. Community Traction Co., supra at 41. Thus, it has been stated by this court that a common carrier is not an insurer of its passengers' safety. Cleveland Railway v. Featherstone (1930), 8 O.L.Abs. 498 at 499. Reference must always be given to the surrounding circumstances when determining whether, as a matter of law, the common carrier exercised the highest degree of care toward the passenger. Id.; 3 see, also, Wade v. Regional Transit Authority (Nov. 9, 1992), Cuyahoga App. No. 61241, unreported. The circumstances of this case demonstrate issues of material fact remaine concerning whether RTA breached its duty toward appellant. The evidence before the trial court, which included appellant's affidavit and the deposition testimony of both appellant and RTA's driver, Beverly Baker, established the following facts: 1) it was an extremely snowy day; 2) driving conditions were terrible; 3) it was RTA's policy to issue ice scrapers to its drivers to keep the steps free from ice; 4) Baker cleaned the front bus steps with her ice scraper at the stop just prior to the one at which appellant boarded the bus; 5) appellant boarded at the front steps and stomped her feet to free them from snow; 6) Baker then made four to five other stops at which passengers boarded and disembarked through the front door; 7) all the passengers stomped the snow off as they boarded; 8) appellant was on the bus for approximately ten minutes; 9) appellant did not observe the floor during the time she was on the bus but Baker did; 10) Baker warned appellant to be careful as she disembarked; however, 11) appellant slipped on one of the steps as she exited the front door of the bus. The foregoing demonstrates the presence of evidence of notice or knowledge that danger of injury to the passenger...existed. Hamilton v. City of Cleveland (1952), 93 Ohio App. 93, headnote 2. Under these circumstances, the question of whether RTA's employee met her duty of care to the passengers to keep the steps in a reasonablysafe condition, while also meeting her responsibility to 4 complete the bus route, was one of fact. Peterson v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (Jan. 26, 1995), Cuyahoga App. No. 67603, unreported; cf., Parras v. Standard Oil Co. (1953), 160 Ohio St. 315, paragraph 2 of the syllabus; Rahman v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (June 2, 1994), Cuyahoga App. No. 66166, unreported; Mallard v. Greater Cleveland Transit Authority (June 5, 1997), Cuyahoga App. No. 70761, unreported. Since appellant met her burden to demonstrate the existence of the elements of her cause of action in negligence, summary judgment for RTA was inappropriate. Accordingly, appellant's assignment of error is sustained. The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 5 It is ordered that appellant recover of appellee her 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 Cuyahoga County 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. _________________________________ DIANE KARPINSKI, PRESIDING JUDGE _________________________________ TIMOTHY E. McMONAGLE, JUDGE KENNETH A. ROCCO, 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 supportingbrief, 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 .