The Ohio Court of Appeals recently ruled in the case of Deborah and Keith Gustafson against The Ohio State University (OSU), affirming a lower court's decision that found the university not liable for negligence. The court's ruling, issued on July 21, 2026, comes after the Gustafsons filed a complaint following an incident where Deborah Gustafson fell on a sidewalk maintained by OSU, leading to injuries. This decision impacts how negligence cases involving public institutions are handled, particularly regarding sidewalk maintenance and safety standards.
In their complaint, filed under docket number 25AP-936, the Gustafsons claimed that the sidewalk was in disrepair and posed a danger, leading to Deborah's fall after attending a football game in October 2022. The couple sought compensatory and punitive damages, arguing that OSU had a duty to maintain safe conditions on its property. The case highlights the responsibilities of public institutions in ensuring safe access for visitors and the legal standards that govern such claims.
The dispute began when the Gustafsons traveled from Iowa to Columbus to attend a football game between OSU and the University of Iowa. After the game, Deborah fell on a sidewalk owned by OSU, which they claimed was hazardous due to its poor condition. They filed their complaint in September 2024, asserting claims of negligence, negligence per se, and loss of consortium. The university responded by filing a motion for summary judgment, arguing that there were no genuine issues of material fact regarding the sidewalk's condition.
OSU's motion for summary judgment was based on the argument that the sidewalk's elevation difference was less than two inches, which, according to Ohio law, is considered insubstantial. The university also contended that the sidewalk's condition was open and obvious, meaning that it did not owe a duty to protect Deborah from the fall. The Court of Claims agreed with OSU, leading to the appeal by the Gustafsons.
In its ruling, the Ohio Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's decision, stating, "The condition of the sidewalk was open and obvious and appellants did not demonstrate a genuine issue of fact as to the existence of attendant circumstances that would preclude application of the open and obvious doctrine." The ruling was made by Judge Edelstein and emphasized that the sidewalk's height difference did not constitute a substantial defect under the law.
The court also addressed the Gustafsons' claim of negligence per se, which argued that OSU violated municipal codes regarding sidewalk maintenance. However, the court found that the ordinances cited by the Gustafsons did not impose a duty on property owners to protect pedestrians from sidewalk defects. The ruling stated, "A city ordinance that simply requires abutting property owners to maintain and repair sidewalks in accordance with certain standards and criteria does not impose a duty on those owners to pedestrians." This aspect of the ruling underscores the limitations of municipal codes in establishing liability for property owners.
The impact of this ruling is significant for both the Gustafsons and other potential plaintiffs. It clarifies that public institutions like OSU may not be held liable for minor sidewalk defects, especially when those defects are open and obvious. This decision may influence future negligence claims against public entities, as it sets a precedent regarding the interpretation of sidewalk safety standards and the responsibilities of property owners.
Looking ahead, the Gustafsons have the option to appeal the ruling to the Ohio Supreme Court, but it remains to be seen whether they will pursue this course of action. The case also raises questions about the broader implications for public safety and the legal standards governing negligence claims in Ohio.