“The existence of snow deposited on an elevated island situated in defendants’ parking lot/drive-thru does not constitute negligence.” —Froelich, Judge 

Facts: In February, Elijah Murphy drove to a McDonald’s restaurant in New Carlisle, Ohio, and parked his vehicle in the parking area. The front of his vehicle faced a 4-inch-high, 30-inch-long concrete median that divided the parking area from the restaurant’s drive-through lane. The median was covered with snow that had been plowed from the drive-through lane and the parking area. Instead of walking around the median, Murphy crossed over the snowcovered median, walked across the drive-through lane, stepped onto the sidewalk along the building, and entered the restaurant. Upon leaving the restaurant, Murphy again walked across the drive-through lane and the median. As he stepped down from the median onto the pavement next to his vehicle, Murphy slipped on the icy pavement and fell. Murphy’s left foot ended up underneath the front wheel of the pickup truck parked next to his vehicle. Murphy suffered severe ankle dislocation that required surgery. Murphy sued McDonald’s to recover damages for negligence, alleging that McDonald’s had failed to provide a safe means of egress and as a result of its snow-plowing activities had created a hazardous condition more dangerous than would normally be encountered. After several depositions were taken, McDonald’s moved for summary judgment. The trial court found that no genuine issue of material fact existed, applied the law to the facts of the case, and granted summary judgment to McDonald’s. Murphy appealed. 

Issue: Is there a genuine issue of material fact that would deny a grant of summary judgment? 

Language of the Court: Snow and ice are part of wintertime life in Ohio. The existence of snow deposited on an elevated island situated in defendants’ parking lot/drive-thru does not constitute negligence. Upon review of the record before us, we find no evidence that the placement of the snow on the McDonald’s median created an increased hazard, i.e., an “unnatural” accumulation of ice. We find that the presence of the ice where Murphy fell was an open and obvious hazard. 

Decision: The court of appeals held that there was no genuine issue of material fact and affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to McDonald’s. 

Ethics Questions: Do you think that Murphy had a very good case against McDonald’s? What are the major reasons for permitting judges to grant summary judgments?