 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Leightner v. Cafaro Ross Partnership9/26/2002
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
. Plaintiff-appellant, Charles Leightner, appeals a decision of the Mahoning County Common Pleas Court awarding summary judgment to defendant-appellee, Cafaro-Ross Partnership, on his claim for personal injury resulting from a fall.
. On January 13, 1999, appellant drove to the Office Depot located in the Eastwood Mall, which is owned and maintained by appellee. As appellant was returning to his car from shopping, he stepped on a piece of ice and fell. As a result he broke his leg.
. On September 30, 1999, appellant and his wife, Paula, filed a complaint alleging negligence on the part of appellee and defendant John Doe Snow Removal Company in creating and/or failing to remove the ice. Appellant sought damages for his physical injuries and economic damages resulting from lost wages and lost profits. Paula sought damages for the loss of her husband's services, companionship, and consortium. Appellee filed an answer on December 3, 1999, denying any negligence and setting forth various affirmative defenses. Appellee also identified R & R Construction as the independent contractor that it hired to plow and remove snow at the premises. However, appellant never sought to amend the complaint to name the company and, therefore, it never became a party to the proceedings. See Civ.R. 15(D).
. Subsequently, appellee filed a motion for summary judgment on April 30, 2001, arguing that no issue of material facts existed and they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Specifically, appellee argued that appellant's fall was the result of a natural accumulation of ice and snow which it had no duty to remove and for which it could not be liable to appellants. Appellee also argued that the condition which caused appellant's fall was open and obvious and one of which he was well aware of at the time of the fall. Appellant responded with a memorandum in opposition on June 8, 2001, and appellee replied on June 25, 2001. The trial court granted appellee's motion for summary judgment on June 26, 2001. In its decision, the court concluded that appellant slipped on a natural accumulation of ice and snow which appellee had no duty to remove. The court also noted that the condition was open and obvious which appellant had a duty to avoid. On July 20, 2001, appellant filed a notice of appeal.
. Appellant raises a single assignment of error on appeal which contains three issues presented for this court's review. Appellant's assignment of error reads:
. "The trial court erred in granting Summary Judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee."
STANDARD OF REVIEW
. An appellate court reviews a trial court's decision on a motion for summary judgment de novo. Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co. (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 105. Summary judgment is properly granted when: (1) there is no genuine issue as to any material fact; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made. Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co. (1976), 54 Ohio St.2d 64, 66; Civ.R. 56(C).
. " party seeking summary judgment, on the ground that the nonmoving party cannot prove its case, bears the initial burden of informing the trial court of the basis for the motion, and identifying those portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact on the essential element(s) of the nonmoving party's claims. The moving party cannot discharge its initial burden under Civ.R. 56 simply by making a conclusory assertion that the nonmoving party ha
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|