Where to File in Ohio
Ohio premises liability law retains the traditional tripartite classification. Invitees—persons entering the property for the owner's business purposes or those using premises open to the public—are owed a duty to exercise ordinary care to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition, to warn of known latent dangers, and to inspect for hazards. Licensees are owed a duty to warn of known dangers not likely to be discovered. Trespassers are generally owed only a duty to refrain from willful and wanton injury. Ohio courts apply the open and obvious doctrine, which holds that a property owner owes no duty to warn of dangers that are open and obvious to a reasonable person—a frequently invoked defense in slip-and-fall litigation.
Ohio's statute of limitations for personal injury is two years from the date of injury under Ohio Revised Code § 2305.10. Claims against political subdivisions (counties, municipalities, townships) are governed by the Ohio Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act, ORC § 2744. Political subdivisions have broad immunity from liability, with immunity waived only for proprietary functions such as maintaining parks or commercial-type activities; governmental functions remain immune. Notice requirements vary by political subdivision; many municipalities require written notice of a defective sidewalk or premise condition within a fixed period before the fall can give rise to liability.
Ohio applies a modified comparative fault system under ORC § 2315.33, using the 51% bar rule. A plaintiff whose contributory fault is greater than 50% of the total fault is barred from recovery. Plaintiffs at 50% or less may recover damages reduced proportionately. Ohio also applies modified joint and several liability: defendants found more than 50% at fault remain jointly and severally liable for all compensatory damages; defendants less than 51% at fault are severally liable only for their proportionate share.
Ohio's open and obvious doctrine is a particularly potent defense in slip-and-fall cases, frequently applied to ice and snow conditions. Under Sidle v. Humphrey (1968) and subsequent cases, naturally accumulating ice and snow visible to a reasonable person is considered an open and obvious danger, eliminating the owner's duty to warn or remove it. However, courts recognize attendant circumstances—distractions, unusual accumulations, or hidden hazards that reduce the hazard's obviousness—as a means for plaintiffs to overcome the open and obvious defense. Successful plaintiffs often present evidence that distracted conditions in a busy retail aisle defeated the open and obvious doctrine.