Funny headline aside, semantics and trying to understand expected meanings of words and phrases is fucky and makes for an interesting case. Per the article the court decision was only 4-3 (i.e., close), and the dissent seemed -- as a person who admittedly is not well-versed in the language normally used by Ohio's Supreme Court -- to be pretty strongly opinionated.

From the snippets in the article I find it pretty easy to sympathize with both sides of the argument!

edit: the full text is available here (the original unarchived source is being hammered by curious people) - you can download the file to read it in full-res

The question seems to be: "did the restaurant exercise reasonable duty of care". There is a lot more to the case than the fun-but-sensationalized headline and even article.