COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT
                       COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
                            NO. 76509
BETTINA MARASON, ET AL.         :
                                :       ACCELERATED DOCKET
          Plaintiffs-Appellants :
                                :         JOURNAL ENTRY
     -vs-                       :
                                :               AND
RISER FOODS, INC., ET AL.       :
                                :             OPINION
          Defendants-Appellees  :
                                :
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT
OF DECISION:                           NOVEMBER 10, 1999
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING:        Civil appeal from
                                Common Pleas Court
                                Case No. CV-358061
JUDGMENT:                       Affirmed.
DATE OF JOURNALIZATION:
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiffs-Appellants:      ROBERT D. WILSON, ESQ.
                                29525 Chagrin Blvd.
                                Suite 203
                                Cleveland, Ohio 44122-4601
For Defendants-Appellees:       ROBERT C. MCCLELLAND, ESQ.
                                Rademaker, Matty, McClelland
                                  & Greve
                                55 Public Square, Suite 1775
                                Cleveland, Ohio 44113
                               -2-
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, J.:
     This is an accelerated appeal under App.R. 11.1.  App.R. 11.1
allows  for  our  decision  to  be  in  brief,  conclusory  form.
Consequently, this  opinion  will not  contain a    comprehensive
exposition  of our  reasons    for affirming  the  trial  court's
decision. See Crawford v. Eastland Shopping Mall Assn. (1983), 11
Ohio App.3d 158.
     Appellant's sole assigned error raises the question  whether
the trial  court erred in granting  summary judgment in favor  of
appellees Riser  Foods and Rini  Rego Stop-N-Shop when  appellees
created the hazard from grocery carts brought into the store from
the outside snowy sidewalks.  The issue for us is whether this case
is different from Paschal  v. Rite Aid Pharmacy, Inc. (1985),  18
Ohio St.3d  203 which  held that when  it is  raining or  snowing
everyone knows that moisture therefore is likely to be tracked into
the area;  as such,  no duty  is owed  to an  invitee under  such
circumstances. A property owner is not an insurer of the invitee's
safety.   We conclude that Paschal  controls the outcome of  this
case.  The trial court correctly granted summary judgment.
     Additionally, this court held no duty existed in a slip  and
fall case when plaintiff claims the carts returned from the parking
area to  the store  brought  more water  into the  store  thereby
creating a greater hazard. Del Balso v. Fred W. Albrecht  Grocery
Co.  (March 7,  1991), Cuyahoga  App. No.  60144, unreported,  3.
Accordingly, this case is not the same as Baudo v. Cleveland Clinic
Found. (1996), 113 Ohio App.3d 245.  In Baudo, no reason  existed
                               -3-
for the water being on the floor other than that an employee  may
have dropped the water  while carrying buckets of water from  the
storage room, located nearby to where appellant fell.  Here, it had
been snowing; a natural condition for water to be accumulated  on
the store's floor regardless of how it arrived.
     Judgment affirmed.
     It is ordered that appellees recover of appellants 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.
ANN DYKE, P.J., and
LEO M.SPELLACY, J., CONCUR.
                                     PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON
                                             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. 22. 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
.