 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cole v. Pine Ridge Apartments Company II12/21/2001
umstances presented, it is our view that the murder committed by Aquilla was not a foreseeable event for which Pine Ridge or Goldberg could be found liable under a negligence theory.
Even assuming that Pine Ridge and Goldberg breached their duty to provide reasonable security, appellants have failed to present any evidence upon which reasonable minds could differ that the breach of the duty to provide reasonable security was the proximate cause of JoAnne's death. Appellants have not established any genuine issues of material fact as to the duty on the part of Pine Ridge and Goldberg to provide security and, even assuming such a duty was breached, that the landlord's breach of that duty was the proximate cause of any injury . For the foregoing reasons, summary judgment was proper as to Pine Ridge and Goldberg.
Lastly, we turn our attention to appellants' argument that summary judgment was inappropriate as to Willo and Trubiano. Willo, Trubinao, DRP, and Morris all agree that at the time of JoAnne's murder, DRP and Morris were the providers of security to the apartment complex. Two days before the incident, Willo and Trubiano had executed an agreement with Morris and DRP. However, in Trubiano's deposition, he stated that the agreement had to be backed up for a week. In his deposition, Morris verified Trubiano's testimony by stating that " he first one was the initial agreement [they] had and [they] were running in a payroll period and decided that [they] could make the 23rd [of August] as the point of sale *." Moreover, Hill and Latham, the security guards on duty the morning of the murder, were employed by DRP and Morris, not Willo and Trubiano.
Therefore, there is no factual dispute between all the parties involved with the consulting agreement that Willo was to take over the security accounts for DRP on August 23, 1995. Since there were no genuine issues as to a material fact, summary judgment was proper as to Willo and Trubiano.
For the foregoing reasons, appellants' assignments of error are not well-taken. The judgment of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
PRESIDING JUDGE DONALD R. FORD
NADER, J., concurs, GRENDELL, J., dissents with Concurring/Dissenting Opinion.
CONCURRING/DISSENTING OPINION
GRENDELL, J.
I concur in the majority's decision with respect to upholding the lower court's ruling, granting summary judgment to appellees, Pine Ridge Apartments Company II, Goldberg Companies, Inc., Willo Security, Inc. and Wayne Trubiano. However, I respectfully dissent from the majority's opinion with respect to appellees, DRP Security, Inc. ("DRP"), David I. Morris ("Morris"), Hermann Hill ("Hill") and Demetrios Latham ("Latham") in this case.
As the majority notes, an appellate court reviews a trial court's granting of summary judgment de novo. Brown v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1993), 87 Ohio App.3d 704, 711. An appellate court must evaluate the record "in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Link v. Leadworks Corp. (1992), 79 Ohio App.3d 735, 741. Further, a motion for summary judgment must be overruled if reasonable minds could find for the party opposing the motion. Id.
As the majority further notes, to maintain a wrongful death action on a theory of negligence, a plaintiff must show that: (1) there was a duty owed to the plaintiff's decedent; (2) there was a breach of that duty; and (3) there was proximate cause between the breach of duty and the death. Littleton v. Good Samaritan Hosp. & Health Ctr. (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d 86, 92. The existence of a duty is in the first instance a question of law for the trial court even though neglig
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|