 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wilson v. Red Roof Inns12/11/1997
Appellant filed a brief in opposition to appellee's motion. On September 23, 1996, however, the trial court granted appellee's motion on the basis that the information sought was "collateral" to the issues to be litigated in the case and would not reasonably lead to admissible evidence.
Shortly thereafter, appellant filed a motion for reconsideration of the protective order. Appellant argued the testimony of other patrons would demonstrate appellee "had notice of the hazard." On October 24, 1996 the trial court denied appellant's motion for reconsideration.
On December 17, 1996, appellee filed a motion for summary judgment. Appellee argued it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the evidence demonstrated both that appellee had met its duty of care toward appellant and that appellant was "the proximate cause of her own injuries.
Appellee attached to its motion copies of the following: 1) portions of appellant's deposition testimony; 2) photographs identified by appellant as ones she had taken of the motel bathroom subsequent to her fall; 3) the affidavit of Christopher L. Fulton, appellee's Corporate Counsel; and 4) a copy of the report of Gerald S. Burko, appellant's safety consultant.
On January 9, 1997 appellant filed a brief in opposition to appellee's motion. Appellant argued genuine issues of fact remained concerning whether appellee was aware of the danger posed by the height differential between the floor of the unit and the bathroom floor and whether appellee adequately warned patrons of that danger. Appellant further argued there was "no evidence that was aware of the hazard."
Appellant attached to her brief her affidavit, in which she reiterated her deposition testimony that upon exiting the unit the second time, "the bathroom floor was not where I expected it to be."
On February 7, 1997 the trial court granted appellee's motion for summary judgment. Appellant subsequently filed a timely notice of appeal from the foregoing order.
Appellant presents three assignments of error for review which will be addressed in logical order. Assignments of Error II and III are both related and argued together by appellant, therefore, they are considered together as follows:
II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING APPELLEE'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER SO AS TO BAR APPELLANT FROM OBTAINING AND INTRODUCING THE TESTIMONY OF NUMEROUS OTHER RED ROOF INN PATRONS WHO WERE INJURED UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WERE SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO THOSE WHICH GAVE RISE TO APPELLANT'S INJURY .
III
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE TRIAL COURT'S ORDER GRANTING THE APPELLEE'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER.
Appellant argues the trial court improperly foreclosed her from seeking evidence relevant to her claims when it granted appellee's motion for a protective order and then refused to reconsider its ruling. This court disagrees.
Civ.R. 26(C) gives the trial court broad authority to regulate discovery. Drawl v. Cleveland Orthopedic Ctr. (1995), 107 Ohio App.3d 272 at 277, citing State, ex rel. Grandview Hosp. & Med. Ctr. v. Gorman (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 94. Absent an abuse of the trial court's discretion in the matter, an appellate court will not overturn a trial court's ruling. In Re Estate of Popp (1994), 94 Ohio App.3d 640; Huebner v. Miles (1993), 92 Ohio App.3d 493. Appellant has the burden to demonstrate the trial court's refusal to permit further discovery affected her substantial right to an effective litigation. In Re Estate of Popp, supra; see, also, Smith v. Klein (1985), 23 Ohio App.3d 146.
<
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|