 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ciesielczyk v. Ogg8/20/2001
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
Defendant-appellant Bernard K. Ogg appeals from the October 27, 2000, Judgment Entry of the Canton Municipal Court.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
On May 8, 1999, at approximately 11: 00 p.m., appellant's vehicle rear-ended appellee's vehicle while appellee was stopped to make a left hand turn onto another roadway. As a result of the accident, appellant was cited for failure to maintain an assured clear distance in violation of R.C. 4511.21(A). Thereafter, appellee, on April 26, 2000, filed a complaint against appellant seeking $3,000.00 as compensation for property damage caused by appellant. An answer and counterclaim were filed by appellant on May 9, 2000. Appellant, in his counterclaim, alleged that appellee was negligent for stopping abruptly without warning and for failing to activate his turn signals. Appellant specifically sought compensation for property damage to his car and for personal injury . An answer to appellant's counterclaim was filed by appellee on June 12, 2000. Subsequently, appellee filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on August 18, 2000, to which appellant filed a response on September 21, 2000. As memorialized in a Judgment Entry filed on September 26, 2000, the trial court granted appellee's motion in part, holding that there existed no genuine issue of material fact relating to appellant's violation of R.C. 4511.21(A), the assured clear distance statute, and that appellant was negligent as a matter of law. However, the trial court also overruled appellee's motion in part, finding that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether appellee was comparatively negligent. A bench trial was held on October 26, 2000.
Pursuant to a Judgment Entry filed the next day, the trial court found that appellant's negligence was the sole proximate cause of the accident and granted appellee judgment against appellant in the amount of $2,500.00 plus costs and interest. The trial court, in its October 27, 2000, entry, also ordered that appellee be granted judgment on appellant's counterclaim. While appellant, on November 13, 2000, filed a Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict and/or for Reconsideration and Objection to Certain Findings of Fact, the same was overruled by the trial court via a November 14, 2000, Judgment Entry. It is from the trial court's October 27, 2000, Judgment Entry that appellant now prosecutes his appeal, raising the following assignments of error:
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I
IN A TRIAL TO THE COURT, THE COURT RELIED ON CLEARLY ERRONEOUS FINDINGS OF FACT, UNSUPPORTED BY THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE WITNESS, QUOTED BY THE COURT IN THE JUDGMENT ENTRY WHICH INCLUDED A STATEMENT OF FINDINGS OF FACT, WHICH WAS PREJUDICIAL TO THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II
THE COURT IMPROPERLY APPLIED THE LAW BY USING ERRONEOUS LEGAL STANDARDS.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III
BY RELYING ON IMAGINED FINDINGS OF FACT, CONTRARY TO EVIDENTIARY TESTIMONY BY THE WITNESS QUOTED, THE COURT ABUSED DISCRETION, AND WHEN IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION BY A MOTION TO RECONSIDER, OVERRULED THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR IV
THE COURT IN A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOUND THE DEFENDANT APPELLANT NEGLIGENT AND IGNORED THE LAW IN THE ENTRY OF SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 WHICH WAS NOT A FINAL APPEALABLE ORDER. THE COURT REFUSED TO ALLOW A TRIAL ON THE MATTER OF THE DEFENDANT'S ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE DESPITE THERE WERE CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES, WHICH ISSUES WERE ALLOWED IN TESTIMONY AS PERTAINED TO THE COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE ACTION REMAINING.
For purposes of clarity, we shall address appellant's ass
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.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|