COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 72270 MARGARET STETZY : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellant : : and -vs- : : OPINION EDWARD L. MULLEN : : Defendant-Appellee : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT APRIL 9, 1998 OF DECISION: CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from Common Pleas Court Case No. CV-298302 JUDGMENT: Affirmed. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCE: For Plaintiff-Appellant: For Defendant-Appellee: THOMAS M. MORONEY, ESQ. THOMAS J. CABRAL, ESQ. 1230 Standard Building Gallagher, Sharp, Fulton, 1370 Ontario Street & Norman Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1739 1501 Euclid Avenue, 7th Floor Cleveland, Ohio 44115 PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, A.J.: Appellant Margaret Stetzy appeals the trial court's granting summary judgment to Edward Mullen in her slip and fall negligence action. Stetzy was walking up the stairs from the foyer into the -2- kitchen of Mullen's home when she slipped on newspapers on the kitchen floor and fell backwards down the stairs. The trial court held the hazard was open and obvious, and thus no duty of care was owed by Mullen. Stetzy assigns the following error for our review: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING APPELLEE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BECAUSE GENUINE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT EXIST. Having reviewed the record and the legal arguments of the parties, we affirm the decision of the trial court. The apposite facts follow. Margaret Stetzy entered the kitchen of Edward Mullen's home and slipped and fell on newspaper, which Mullen had placed on the floor for his dog to use until Stetzy arrived to let him out. Stetzy broke her leg as a result of slipping on the newspaper and falling down the stairs. The backdoor of Mullen's house opens to a small foyer. Upon entering, there are three to four steps leading up to the kitchen and a stairway leading down to the basement. The steps leading to the kitchen have no railing. When Stetzy entered, she noticed newspaper on the floor of the foyer. She did not notice that the kitchen floor was also covered with newspaper. In response to her lawsuit, Mullen moved for summary judgment arguing that the newspapers were open and obvious and that upon careful inspection, she should have discovered them and taken care to protect herself. Her deposition revealed that the area was lighted. The trial court agreed with Mullen and granted his summary judgment. Stetzy argues Mullen owed her a duty to warn -3- that the newspapers were placed on the kitchen floor where she fell and at best he breached his duty to attach a handrail to the stairs. Summary judgment may be granted only if no genuine issue of material fact exists. Civ.R. 56(C). Our standard of review for summary judgment is the same as that of the trial court. Consequently, we review cases de novo. Brown v. Scioto Cty Bd of Commrs. (1993), 87 Ohio App.3d 704, citing Midwest Specialties, Inc. v. Firestone Co. (1988), 42 Ohio App.3d 6. In applying the de novo standard, we review the trial court's decision independently and without deference to the trial court's determination. Id. at 711. Summary judgment is appropriate when the following have been established: (1) that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact; (2) that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) that reasonable minds can 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 construed most strongly in its favor. Brown, supra, citing Bostic v. Connor (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 144, 146; cf., also State ex rel. Coulverson v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 12, 14; Civ.R. 56(C). The burden of showing no genuine issue as to any material fact is on the party who requested the summary judgment. Dresher v. Burt (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 280,294, citing Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co.(1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 64, 66, and Hamlin v. McAlpin -4- Co. (1964), 175 Ohio St. 517, 519-520. However, the non-moving party has the initial burden of showing a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Mitseff v. Wheeler (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 112, 115. See Dresher, supra at 295, (limiting syllabus 3 of Wing v. Anchor Media, Ltd. Of Texas (1991), 59 Ohio St.3d 108.) An issue is genuine only if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could find for the non-movant. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. (1986), 477 U.S. 242. Applying these standards to this case, we conclude the trial court correctly granted summary judgment because the newspapers were open and obvious. The open and obvious rule is a legal doctrine that has developed from suits filed against property owners by persons injured while on the landowner's property. Simmers v. Bentley Constr. Co. (1992), 64 Ohio St.3d 642, 644; citing Sidle v. Humphrey (1968), 13 Ohio St.3d 45, at paragraph one of the syllabus; Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy, Inc. (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 203. 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 measure to protect themselves. Simmers, supra at 644; citing Sidle, supra. Stetzy is charged with inspecting, discovering, and protecting herself when hazards are open and obvious. Her deposition testimony revealed that the newspapers covered the kitchen floor. Stetzy also told Mullen to place the newspapers on the floor near -5- the door. She also said that the area was illuminated. Under the Simmers Sidle Paschal standard, the hazard itself served as a warning. Consequently, no duty of care is owed by Mullen. Stetzy, however, argues the absence of a handrail on the stairs was a factor in her fall, and Mullen owed a duty to have one installed. It is uncontroverted that no handrail was attached to the stairs; that Stetzy had frequented the house before and knew this; and that the house was one that typically did not have a handrail. In view of these facts, we conclude that Mullen was not under a duty to have a handrail. Stetzy fell when she slipped on the newspapers. She did not fall because of her inability to negotiate the stairs or the absence of a handrail. Consequently, those cases that have attributed liability when a handrail was absent or defective are inapplicable to this case. The newspapers were open and obvious and knowledge of that condition is as a matter of law attributed to Stetzy to discover and take care to protect herself. Also, Stetzy's reliance on Shaw v. Central Oil Asphalt Corp. (1981), 5 Ohio App.3d 42 is misplaced. In Shaw, the stairs had a handrail which was defective. The court held the owner breached his duty to warn of the defect. This is not the case here. Accordingly, Stetzy's assigned error is overruled. Judgment affirmed. -6- It is ordered that Appellee recover of Appellant his 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. Exceptions. NAHRA, J., and ROCCO, J., CONCUR. PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON ADMINISTRATIVE 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 .