## Facts

- Brandy Andler attended a country-music festival and visited a campground owned and operated by Clear Channel as part of the event in Belmont County, Ohio.
- At night, while walking toward restrooms, Andler stepped off a path and fell into a grass-covered hole (about six to eight inches deep), breaking bones in both feet.
- Andler claimed the hole was not visible because the grass in the hole blended with surrounding grass.
- She later developed arthritis and asserted permanent limitations affecting her ability to work.
- Andler sought damages under Ohio tort law, including medical expenses and loss of future earning capacity.
- She offered an accountant’s expert testimony calculating loss of earning capacity based on assumptions about her pre-injury career trajectory and post-injury work limitations.

## Issues

1. Whether sufficient evidence supported liability under Ohio premises-liability law, including Andler’s status on the property (invitee vs. licensee) and whether the hole was an open-and-obvious condition.
2. Whether the district court erred in denying Clear Channel’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on liability.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding the plaintiff’s expert testimony on loss of future earning capacity as unreasonably speculative and by barring loss-of-capacity damages from the jury.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the denial of Clear Channel’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on liability.
- The court reversed the exclusion of Andler’s lost-earning-capacity expert testimony, holding it was not unreasonably speculative as a matter of law.
- The court vacated the $10,000 damages award entered after the expert exclusion and remanded for a new trial limited to damages.

## Legal Principles

- Under Ohio premises-liability law, an owner’s duty depends on the entrant’s status, and questions of entrant status and whether a condition is open and obvious may be for the jury when supported by evidence.
- Ohio’s open-and-obvious doctrine can negate a duty to warn of hazards that are apparent, but a hazard that blends into its surroundings may support a finding that it is not open and obvious.
- Loss of future earning capacity is distinct from past lost wages; it compensates for diminished ability to earn over time and need not be proven with mathematical precision.
- Economic expert testimony on loss of earning capacity is admissible where grounded in record evidence (work history, medical condition, wage data, and accepted present-value methods); uncertainty generally goes to weight, not admissibility.
- A district court abuses its discretion when it excludes such testimony by requiring undue certainty or by treating earning-capacity loss as requiring proof of a specific future job.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit left the liability finding intact but required a damages retrial because the jury was improperly prevented from considering a non-speculative, evidence-based expert estimate of diminished future earning capacity.


Andler v. Clear Channel Broad., Inc., 670 F.3d 717 (6th Cir. 2012)