 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Fodor v. City of Strongsville11/10/2004
ineer and constructed by ODOT's general contractor for the bridge project."
{ } Strongsville also attached to its motion photographs taken by appellant's husband soon after the incident that depicted the place where appellant fell. These showed the location was on the eastern side of Pearl Road just past the bridge deck. The photographs showed the side guardrail insinuated itself from the end of the bridge to narrow the sidewalk next to the concrete catch basin cover; beyond the cover on its north edge, a widening "tree lawn" area began between the road's curb and the sidewalk. The cover was separated from the sidewalk by an "expansion gap" of perhaps two inches.
{ } Cuyahoga County presented the affidavit of Jeffrey Horvath, its "Chief Bridge Inspection/Maintenance Engineer." Horvath stated that he inspected the place where appellant fell. He further stated the "approach of the bridge extends from the expansion joints to twenty-five feet beyond the bridge," and that "the cement area where [appellant alleged] her fall occurred not located [either] on the bridge or the approaches (sic) to the bridge."
{ } Appellant responded to the motions after dismissing the metropark as a defendant in the action. She argued in her brief in opposition that because appellees' evidence indicated "each blamed the other" for the incident, summary judgment in their favor was improper.
{ } Appellant provided her affidavit, in which she stated that the "catch basin had settled significantly below the grade of the sidewalk," and a "large rut" existed "between the catch basin and the sidewalk." Appellant asserted one of the appellees must have been aware of the problem, because "public records" demonstrated other bicyclists had been injured in the same area, and the city service department had been directed "to research responsibility" for the "pavement differences."
In support of her assertion, appellant submitted the affidavit of another bicyclist who claimed she had been injured on April 1, 2000 in a fall that occurred because of the "poor condition of the sidewalk and/or cement."
{ } Each appellee filed a reply brief in which it argued that it was not responsible for the condition that caused appellant's fall. Cyuahoga County's brief was supported by Horvath's additional affidavit and copies of the documents he referenced therein.
{ } The trial court subsequently granted each appellee's motion for summary judgment. Appellant appeals from those orders with the following assignment of error:
{ } "The trial court erred when it improperly granted summary judgment dismissing appellant's claims against Cuyahoga County and City of Strongsville."
{ } Appellant argues the record contains evidence that the sidewalk area at which the mishap occurred was in a condition that constituted a nuisance, and that one of the appellees was responsible for its condition; therefore, summary judgment for them was inappropriate. Appellant's argument is unpersuasive, since the evidence demonstrated Cuyahoga County was exempted from liability pursuant to R.C. 723.01 and Strongsville was entitled to immunity pursuant to R.C. 2744.02(B)(3).
{ } In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts must be viewed in a light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Temple United, Inc. v. Wean (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 317. Nevertheless, a properly-supported motion for summary judgment forces the nonmoving party to produce evidence on any issue for which that party bears the burden of production at trial. Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 1996-Ohio-107, modifying Wing v. Anchor Media,
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|