Background
On September 15, 2023, Toby Trevis parked at a building owned by Shelbourne CP, LLC and entered through the rear door during daylight hours. After remaining inside for several hours, she exited through the same rear door in darkness without looking down. She fell off a ledge created by elevation changes in the parking lot area and sustained injuries. The building housed an interior tenant, Fromovitz Chabad Center, which had no ownership or control over the exterior grounds.
Trevis filed suit in May 2024 alleging that Shelbourne and Fromovitz negligently failed to maintain, inspect, and control the premises, creating an unsafe condition. She argued the defendants should have warned her of the elevation change and that non-functioning outdoor lighting violated building codes. In August 2025, the trial court granted summary judgment for both defendants, reasoning that the elevation change was an open and obvious hazard and that darkness itself is an open and obvious condition that does not trigger a duty to warn. Trevis appealed, arguing genuine issues of material fact remained regarding the defendants’ liability and the property’s maintenance.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth District affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment, holding that Trevis’s negligence claim failed as a matter of law. The court applied the “open and obvious” doctrine, which provides that property owners owe no duty to warn of hazards that are open and obvious. The court emphasized that under Ohio law, darkness is always an open and obvious condition that serves as a warning of danger and should not be disregarded. Trevis intentionally stepped from a lighted area into total darkness without investigating possible hazards, triggering application of the “step-in-the-dark” rule, which precludes recovery as a matter of law.
The court rejected Trevis’s argument that the non-functioning outdoor lighting created a genuine issue of material fact. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the court held that violations of building codes constitute only evidence of negligence, not negligence per se. Under Ohio law, administrative rule violations cannot alter proof requirements or elevate property owners to insurers of third-party safety. The open-and-obvious doctrine operates as a complete bar to liability regardless of building code violations. The court also rejected Trevis’s distinction based on a prior decision (Robinson v. Dance Studio) as inapplicable, since Robinson involved interior theater lighting designed to assist patrons during a performance, whereas Trevis’s case involved intentionally entering exterior darkness.
Key Takeaways
- Property owners owe no duty to warn of open and obvious hazards, including darkness, even when outdoor lighting is non-functional.
- The “step-in-the-dark” rule precludes recovery when a person intentionally steps from a lighted area into total darkness without investigating possible dangers.
- Violations of building codes and administrative rules are admissible as evidence of negligence but do not constitute negligence per se under Ohio law.
- The open-and-obvious doctrine operates as an absolute defense to premises liability claims when applied to predictable conditions like darkness.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces strong protections for property owners in premises liability cases under Ohio law. Courts will not impose liability based on building code violations alone, nor will they require owners to warn of conditions as basic and universally recognizable as darkness. The decision clarifies that business owners and landlords need not maintain perfect outdoor lighting or provide additional warnings for nighttime navigation hazards that are plainly foreseeable. The holding also confirms that comparative negligence principles place significant responsibility on invitees to exercise reasonable care when entering dark areas without investigation.
For property owners and insurers, the decision provides certainty that compliance with administrative codes, while important, does not establish negligence or create liability for obvious environmental conditions. However, the decision leaves open the narrower exception established in Robinson—that custom-designed lighting systems intended to serve a safety function may create factual questions if they malfunction—suggesting that lighting systems specifically engineered as safety features occupy different legal terrain than ordinary outdoor illumination.