Cole v. Pine Ridge Apartments Company II12/21/2001
on duty during the early morning hours of August 17, 1995. The procedures of DRP called for one of the guards on duty to remain at the gatehouse, while the other guard was to perform foot patrol of the buildings in the apartment complex in the following intervals: 8 p.m. to 10 p.m.; 10 p.m. to midnight; midnight to 2 a.m.; 2 a.m. to 4 a.m.
In the early morning hours of August 17, 1995, Latham, the guard that was to perform the rounds during the 2 a.m. to 4 a.m. shift, did not complete his rounds. In Latham's deposition, he stated that Hill called him off of his 2 a.m. to 4 a.m. foot patrol, around 3:30 a.m. Hill asked him to return to the gatehouse because there was someone there for him. At first, he thought it was a tenant that had something for him. When he arrived at the gatehouse, he noticed a female, Daniela A. Giancola ("Giancola"), who was a non-tenant of the complex, in a very intoxicated state. Neither Hill nor Latham knew Giancola. Giancola informed Latham that she needed to get home because she got into an argument with her boyfriend and "he threw her out of the car." After Giancola made several telephone calls and was unable to find a ride home, Latham decided to take her home instead of allowing her to walk. He figured it would take "no longer than 10, 15 minutes to get her there and back." Latham never reported his departures from the premises. He testified that he "was back on the property at 3:48 a.m."
In his deposition, Morris testified that after the events occurred on August 17, 1995, he felt that Latham had abandoned his foot patrol rounds because "he was removing a possible security risk from the property." According to Morris' testimony, Giancola was drunk, loud, and abusive, and Hill and Latham described her to Morris as a security risk.
On August 15, 1995, two days before the incident, Willo and Trubiano had executed a consulting agreement with Morris and DRP, where Willo and Trubiano would acquire the security accounts from DRP and hire Morris as an independent consultant. In his deposition, Trubiano stated that the agreement had to be backed up for a week because things "couldn't [be done] that fast. We couldn't get the payroll stuff ready *." Therefore, a second consulting agreement was entered into on August 23, 1995. In his deposition, Morris also stated that the reason there were two different agreements was because " he first one was the initial agreement [they] had and [they] were running into a payroll period and decided that [they] could make the 23rd as the point of sale or whatever."
Hill filed a motion for summary judgment on March 5, 1998. Thereafter, on April 29, 1998, Pine Ridge and Goldberg moved for summary judgment. On April 30, 1998, Willo and Trubiano also filed a summary judgment motion. Appellants filed briefs in opposition to the motions for summary judgment. In a judgment entry dated July 27, 1998, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Hill, Pine Ridge, Goldberg, Willo and Trubiano.
On October 22, 1998, DRP, Morris, and Latham moved for summary judgment. Appellants filed a brief in opposition on October 30, 1998. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of DRP, Morris, and Latham on January 28, 1999. A notice of appeal was filed from that decision. However, this court dismissed the appeal for lack of a final appealable order. Cole v. Pine Ridge Apts. Co. II (June 1, 1999), Lake App. No. 99-L-028, unreported, 1999 WL 1458387, at 1. However, the Supreme Court of Ohio reversed our decision and remanded the matter to the trial court for further proceedings. Cole v. Pine Ridge Apts. Co. II (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 229. Thus, the trial court issued an entry on January 14, 2000, which reaff
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|