COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 72816 INDIA CHANNELS, : : Plaintiff-Appellant : JOURNAL ENTRY : and vs. : OPINION : OMNI INTERNATIONAL HOTEL, : ET AL., : : Defendants-Appellees : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : JUNE 11, 1998 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: : Civil appeal from : Common Pleas Court : Case No. 317146 JUDGMENT : AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellant: Thomas M. Horwitz PELTZ & BIRNE 1880 Midland Building 101 Prospect Avenue, West Cleveland, Ohio 44115 For defendants-appellees: David G. Hill Mary Adele Springman DAVID G. HILL & ASSOCIATES 840 Halle Building 1228 Euclid Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44115-1802 -2- NAHRA, P.J.: Appellant, India Channels, appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of appellee, the Cleveland Clinic Foundation (hereinafter CCF ). On June 15, 1995, Channels, employed as a housekeeper at the Omni International Hotel, which premises are owned by CCF, reported that she was assaulted by a guest of the hotel. After appellant reported the incident, two other hotel employees reported to the CCF police department that they had been assaulted in a similar manner by the same guest. CCF was granted summary judgment on appellant's premises liability claim because the trial court found that appellant presented no evidence that CCF was aware of the guest's behavior prior to June 15, 1995, and that, therefore, CCF was not negligent in failing to warn Channels of a hidden danger on its premises. Appellant's sole assignment of error reads: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT CCF WHERE REASONABLE MINDS COULD CONCLUDE THAT DEFENDANT CCF FAILED TO WARN PLAINTIFF OF THE CONCEALED HAZARD ON ITS PROPERTY. A grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo. Brown v. Scioto Bd. of Commrs. (1993), 87 Ohio App.3d 704, 711, 622 N.E.2d 1153, 1158. A court may grant a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 56 when it determines that: (1) No genuine issue as to any material fact remains to be litigated; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) it appears from the evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and viewing such evidence most strongly in favor of the party against whom the motion for summary -3- judgment is made, that conclusion is adverse to that party. Temple v. Wean United, Inc. (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 317, 327, 364 N.E.2d 267, 274. The owner or occupier of premises owes a duty to an invitee to warn them of dangerous conditions which are known to, or reasonably ascertainable by, the owner and which the invitee is not expected to discover. Jackson v. King's Island (1979) 58 Ohio St.2d 357, 359, 390 N.E.2d 810, 812. Appellant argues, and we will assume for the purpose of summary judgment, that a hotel guest's prior assaults would constitute a dangerous condition of the property for which CCF could be held liable. In this case, CCF supported its motion for summary judgment with three police reports. The police reports contain a narrative description of the incidents, complainant statements, and a numbered categorical information section. Within the categorical information, one section is headed by the words Contact Date: . In all three investigative reports the date that the assaults occurred is entered in this section. Appellant argues that these entries may be read to indicate that the police were contacted on those dates and that a genuine issue of material fact remains as to whether or not CCF had notice of the guest's actions. However, both the narrative portions of the reports and the victims' written statements clearly indicate that the incidents were first reported to CCF on June 15, 1998. For this reason, summary judgment was appropriately granted where -4- appellant cannot produce evidence of CCF's knowledge of the guest's actions prior to appellant's report. Judgment affirmed. -5- It is ordered that appellees recover of appellant their 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. JOSEPH J. NAHRA PRESIDING JUDGE PATTON, J., and MICHAEL J. CORRIGAN, J., CONCUR. 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 .