 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Trexler v. R.M.D.M. Enterprises8/7/2001
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
Plaintiff-appellant, Robert Trexler, Jr., appeals the trial court's decision granting the motion for summary judgment of defendants-appellees, R.M.D.M. Enterprises and The New Point Café. The trial court found that because appellant's injuries were the result of another party's intentional, criminal acts that occurred off the premises of the New Point Café, appellant has no cause of action against appellees under R.C. 4399.18. We agree.
During the evening hours of October 3, 1998, and the early morning hours of October 4, 1998, appellant was a patron at the New Point Café, a liquor establishment serving alcoholic beverages under a liquor permit held by R.M.D.M. Enterprises. Two other patrons were also at the New Point Café, Charles Lee King and Tammy McNicholson. A dispute apparently occurred between King and McNicholson that culminated in King pulling a knife on McNicholson. These events were apparently witnessed by the person in charge of the establishment, Sean Minshall, an employee of appellees, who in turn ordered both King and McNicholson out of the establishment. Accordingly, King left by way of the back door and McNicholson by way of the front door. Feeling that McNicholson was in some kind of danger, appellant, who had seen King pull a knife on McNicholson, accompanied her as she exited the front door. As they exited, King, who evidently drove around from the rear parking lot, met them in the vicinity of the front entrance, knife in hand and still in a confrontational mode. As McNicholson ran away, King turned to appellant who fled on foot with King in pursuit. Appellant ran across the parking lot and into an adjacent lot where a number of Ryder trucks were parked. King caught up with appellant between two of the trucks and stabbed him. King was subsequently convicted of felonious assault for stabbing appellant.
On October 4, 1999, appellant filed the instant action in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas against appellees, R.M.D.M Enterprises and The New Point Café, as well as King, seeking damages for the injuries he suffered from the stabbing. On October 9, 1999, appellees answered, denying liability. King has not filed an answer in this case. On July 7, 2000, appellees moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted on August 31, 2000. It is from this judgment that appellant filed this appeal asserting the following assignment of error:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE DETRIMENT OF PLAINTIFF BY CONSTRUING O.R.C. §4399.18 AS REQUIRING THAT AN INTENTIONAL TORT BE COMMITTED STRICTLY UPON THE PREMISES OF THE LIQUOR PERMIT HOLDER, OR A PARKING AREA UNDER ITS CONTROL IN ORDER THAT LIABILITY UNDER THAT STATUTE BE APPLIED.
Preliminarily, as this matter arises out of the trial court's grant of summary judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 56, we review the trial court's determination independently, and without deference. Brown v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1993), 87 Ohio App.3d 704. In conducting our review, we apply the same standard as the trial court. Maust v. Bank One Columbus, N.A. (1992), 83 Ohio App.3d 103.
In accordance with Civ.R. 56, summary judgment may only be granted if, viewing the evidence most strongly in favor of the non-moving party, no genuine issue of fact exists, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and reasonable minds can only come to a conclusion which is adverse to the non-moving party. Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co. (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 64. A motion for summary judgment first forces the moving party to inform the court of the basis of the motion and to identify portions in the record, which demonstrate the absence
Page 1 2 3 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
|