The Ohio Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of Winking Lizard Tavern and Cintas Corporation in a slip-and-fall case. The ruling, made on May 28, 2026, affects Mary Beth Housel, who claimed she was injured after tripping on a floor mat at a Winking Lizard restaurant in Mayfield Heights, Ohio. This decision highlights the complexities of proving negligence in premises liability cases.
The case originated from an incident that occurred on September 17, 2024, when Housel fell on a mat provided by Cintas at the restaurant. She alleged that the mat was rumpled, wet, and poorly illuminated, contributing to her fall. The court's ruling is significant as it underscores the high burden of proof required for plaintiffs in slip-and-fall cases.
Mary Beth Housel filed her complaint in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, asserting claims of negligence against both Winking Lizard and Cintas. She argued that the mat's condition was hazardous and that the restaurant failed to maintain a safe environment for its patrons. The case progressed through the courts, leading to a series of motions and hearings regarding expert testimony and the evidence presented.
In December 2024, the court established a case-management schedule that included deadlines for the exchange of expert reports. Housel's expert, Richard Zimmerman, was deposed before Cintas submitted its expert report, leading Housel to file a motion in limine to exclude Cintas's expert from testifying. The court denied this motion. Housel contended that this procedural issue violated the Ohio Civil Rules of Procedure, which require mutual exchange of expert reports before depositions.
Winking Lizard filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Housel had not shown that a hazardous condition existed at the time of her fall. They presented security video footage indicating that Housel tripped over the mat rather than slipping on it. Cintas also moved for summary judgment, claiming that it had no liability as Housel was not an intended beneficiary of its contract with Winking Lizard.
On September 6, 2025, the court granted both motions for summary judgment, leading Housel to appeal the decision. The court found that Housel did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that a hazardous condition existed, nor did it find that Winking Lizard or Cintas had knowledge of any such condition.
Judge Lisa B. Forbes, writing for the court, stated, "The record includes no evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that a hazardous condition existed in the Restaurant, about which Winking Lizard or Cintas knew or should have known." This conclusion was based on the security footage, witness testimonies, and expert opinions presented during the case.
The court's ruling emphasized that to prevail in a negligence claim based on premises liability, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant had a duty to maintain a safe environment, breached that duty, and that the breach caused the injury. In this case, the court found no genuine dispute of material fact existed regarding whether Winking Lizard or Cintas had a duty to Housel or that they failed to meet that duty.
The decision has broader implications for similar cases in Ohio. It highlights the challenges plaintiffs face in proving negligence, particularly in slip-and-fall incidents. The ruling also underscores the importance of video evidence in establishing the facts of a case, as it can significantly influence a court's determination of liability.
As for the future, Housel has the option to appeal the ruling to a higher court, although it is unclear whether she will pursue that route. There are no related cases pending that could impact this ruling.
This case serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in personal injury claims and the critical importance of gathering strong evidence to support claims of negligence.