Premises Liability Complaint - Ohio

PREMISES LIABILITY COMPLAINT — OHIO

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Caption
2. Parties
3. Jurisdiction and Venue
4. Factual Allegations
5. Duty of Care — Visitor Status
6. First Claim for Relief — Negligence (Premises Liability)
7. Second Claim for Relief — Negligent Maintenance
8. Third Claim for Relief — Failure to Warn
9. Fourth Claim for Relief — Willful or Wanton Misconduct
10. Damages
11. Jury Demand
12. Prayer for Relief
13. State-Specific Notes
14. Sources and References

1. CAPTION

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

[COUNTY NAME] COUNTY, OHIO

2. PARTIES

1. Plaintiff, [PLAINTIFF FULL NAME] ("Plaintiff"), is an individual residing at [ADDRESS], [CITY], [COUNTY] County, Ohio [ZIP CODE].

2. Defendant, [DEFENDANT FULL NAME] ("Defendant"), is [an individual residing at / a corporation organized under the laws of / a limited liability company formed under the laws of] [STATE], and at all relevant times was the [owner / lessee / occupier / manager] of the real property located at [PROPERTY ADDRESS], [CITY], [COUNTY] County, Ohio [ZIP CODE] (the "Premises").

3.

3. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.01, as the Court of Common Pleas has original jurisdiction over all civil cases in which the sum or matter in dispute exceeds the jurisdictional limits of the county and municipal courts.

5. Venue is proper in [COUNTY] County pursuant to Ohio Civ. R. 3(C) because [the cause of action arose in this county / Defendant resides in this county / Defendant conducted activity in this county that gave rise to the claim].

4. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

6. At all relevant times, Defendant [owned / leased / occupied / managed / controlled] the Premises located at [PROPERTY ADDRESS], [CITY], Ohio [ZIP CODE].

7. On or about [DATE OF INCIDENT], at approximately [TIME], Plaintiff was lawfully present on the Premises for the purpose of [PURPOSE OF VISIT].

8. At the time of the incident, there existed on the Premises a dangerous and hazardous condition, specifically: [DESCRIBE DANGEROUS CONDITION IN DETAIL].

9. Defendant had [actual / constructive] knowledge of the dangerous condition because:

☐ Defendant created the dangerous condition.

☐ Defendant had actual knowledge through [DESCRIBE].

☐ The dangerous condition existed for a sufficient length of time that Defendant, in the exercise of ordinary care, should have known of it.

☐ The condition was of a recurring nature and Defendant knew or should have known of the pattern.

10. The dangerous condition was not open and obvious to Plaintiff.

11. As a direct and proximate result of the dangerous condition, Plaintiff [DESCRIBE INCIDENT] and sustained severe injuries.

5. DUTY OF CARE — VISITOR STATUS

12. At the time of the incident, Plaintiff was [an invitee / a licensee] on the Premises.

If Invitee:

13. Plaintiff entered the Premises by invitation — express or implied — for a purpose connected with the business or activities conducted on the Premises, or for a purpose for which the premises are held open to the public. As an invitee, Defendant owed Plaintiff the duty of ordinary care to maintain the Premises in a reasonably safe condition and to warn of latent or hidden dangers of which Defendant knew or should have known. This duty includes a duty to inspect the Premises.

If Licensee:

13. Plaintiff entered the Premises with Defendant's permission or acquiescence, but primarily for Plaintiff's own purposes. As a licensee, Defendant owed Plaintiff the duty to refrain from willful, wanton, or reckless conduct and to warn of known hidden dangers on the Premises that the licensee could not reasonably be expected to discover.

6. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF — NEGLIGENCE (PREMISES LIABILITY)

(Against Defendant [DEFENDANT NAME])

14. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 13 above.

15. Defendant owed Plaintiff the duties described above based on Plaintiff's status on the Premises.

16. Defendant breached these duties by one or more of the following acts or omissions:

☐ Failing to maintain the Premises in a reasonably safe condition;

☐ Failing to inspect the Premises for hazardous conditions;

☐ Failing to correct, repair, or remedy the dangerous condition;

☐ Failing to warn Plaintiff of the dangerous condition;

☐ Failing to take reasonable steps to protect Plaintiff from the dangerous condition;

☐ [OTHER SPECIFIC ACTS OR OMISSIONS].

17. Defendant's breach was a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

7. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF — NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE

(Against Defendant [DEFENDANT NAME])

18. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.

19. Defendant had a duty to properly maintain the Premises, including but not limited to [SPECIFY MAINTENANCE DUTIES].

20. Defendant negligently maintained the Premises by [DESCRIBE SPECIFIC MAINTENANCE FAILURES].

21. Defendant's negligent maintenance was a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries.

8. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF — FAILURE TO WARN

(Against Defendant [DEFENDANT NAME])

22. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.

23. Defendant knew or, in the exercise of ordinary care, should have known of the dangerous condition on the Premises.

24. Defendant failed to adequately warn Plaintiff of the dangerous condition, including but not limited to [failure to post warning signs / failure to barricade the area / failure to use cones or markers].

25. Defendant's failure to warn was a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries.

9. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF — WILLFUL OR WANTON MISCONDUCT

(Against Defendant [DEFENDANT NAME])

26. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.

27. Defendant's conduct was willful, wanton, and reckless, demonstrating a deliberate and conscious disregard for the safety of Plaintiff, in that Defendant [DESCRIBE EGREGIOUS CONDUCT].

28. By reason of Defendant's willful and wanton conduct, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages.

10. DAMAGES

29. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer the following injuries and damages:

a. Medical Expenses: Past and future reasonable and necessary medical expenses, including hospitalization, surgery, physician visits, physical therapy, prescription medications, and diagnostic testing.

b. Lost Wages and Earning Capacity: Past and future loss of wages, income, and diminished earning capacity.

c. Pain and Suffering: Past and future physical pain and suffering.

d. Mental Anguish: Past and future mental anguish and emotional distress.

e. Disability: Past and future disability and physical impairment.

f. Disfigurement: Past and future disfigurement.

g. Loss of Enjoyment of Life: Past and future loss of enjoyment of life.

h. Loss of Consortium: [IF APPLICABLE — Plaintiff's spouse has been deprived of the society, companionship, comfort, and conjugal relations of Plaintiff.]

i. Punitive Damages: [IF APPLICABLE — Punitive damages pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code § 2315.21.]

11. JURY DEMAND

30. Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues.

12. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant for:

1. Compensatory damages in an amount fair and reasonable according to proof at trial;
2. Punitive damages [IF APPLICABLE];
3. Prejudgment interest as permitted by Ohio Rev. Code § 1343.03;
4. Costs of this action;
5. Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and equitable.

Respectfully submitted,

[LAW FIRM NAME]

By: ________________________________________
[ATTORNEY NAME] (Ohio Bar No. [NUMBER])
[ADDRESS LINE 1]
[ADDRESS LINE 2]
[CITY], Ohio [ZIP CODE]
Telephone: [PHONE]
Email: [EMAIL]
Attorney for Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF NAME]

13. STATE-SPECIFIC NOTES

Visitor Classification Retained. Ohio retains the traditional common-law distinctions among invitees, licensees, and trespassers. The duty owed depends on the plaintiff's status at the time of injury.

Modified Comparative Fault (Greater-Than-50% Bar). Under Ohio Rev. Code § 2315.33, a plaintiff's recovery is reduced by the plaintiff's percentage of fault. Recovery is barred when the plaintiff's fault is greater than the combined tortious conduct of all other persons included by the statute, whether or not the plaintiff seeks recovery from each of them.

Open and Obvious Doctrine. The doctrine remains viable. Under Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., 99 Ohio St.3d 79, 2003-Ohio-2573, a landowner owes no duty of care for a condition that is objectively open and obvious. Attendant circumstances bear on whether the condition was open and obvious; they are not an automatic exception.

Child Trespassers. Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.402(D) states specific, cumulative conditions for liability arising from an artificial condition where children are likely to trespass. Do not reduce those elements to mere attraction to the property.

Statute of Limitations. Two (2) years from the date of injury. Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.10.

Government Property. Claims against political subdivisions are governed by Ohio Rev. Code Ch. 2744 (Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act). Political subdivisions are generally immune from liability, with statutory exceptions for negligent acts relating to proprietary functions and certain enumerated exceptions for governmental functions.

Punitive Damages. Ohio Rev. Code § 2315.21 governs punitive damages. Punitive damages are generally capped at two times the amount of compensatory damages, with exceptions.

Trespassers. Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.402 generally limits the duty to trespassers but includes peril and child-trespasser provisions. Ohio's separate recreational-user provisions are in Chapter 1533.

14. SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• Ohio Rev. Code § 2315.33 — Comparative Fault
• Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.10 — Statute of Limitations
• Ohio Rev. Code § 2315.21 — Punitive Damages
• Ohio Rev. Code Ch. 2744 — Political Subdivision Tort Liability
• Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.402 — Duties Owed to Trespassers: https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2305.402
• Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., 99 Ohio St.3d 79, 2003-Ohio-2573: https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2003/2003-ohio-2573.pdf
• Gladon v. Greater Cleveland Reg'l Transit Auth., 75 Ohio St.3d 312 (1996) (invitee duty)
• Stinnet v. Virginia, 186 Ohio App.3d 818 (2010) (constructive notice)
• Ohio Jury Instructions — Civil, Section 315 (Premises Liability)