 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Trexler v. R.M.D.M. Enterprises8/7/2001
bility to an injury occurring elsewhere, even if the impetus or motivation commenced on appellees' premises or parking lot. No harm contemplated within the statute occurred to appellant on the premises. R.C. 4399.18 requires that there be an injury, death, or property damage caused by the intoxicated patron in a parking lot under the control of the permit holder. It allows no ambiguity in this respect.
" nless a different intention appears in the statute, words in the statute shall be construed in their ordinary and natural meaning to effectuate the intent of the legislature." Layman v. Woo (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 485, 487. The intention of the legislature appears clear. A permit holder's liability for intentional criminal acts ends where his control ends. This intention is especially clear since off-premises liability for knowingly serving a noticeably intoxicated patron is limited to negligent conduct by the patron and does not apply to intentional misconduct.
The injury caused to appellant occurred in another parking lot. Liability of the permit holder herein stopped once appellant left the parking lot. Of course the liability of the actual assailant (King) remains, but that of the permit holder has ceased. This case is different only in degree, not result, of the situation where an intoxicated person follows a person home from a bar and intentionally injures them five minutes later on the highway.
Appellant's assignment of error is overruled, and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed. TYACK and DESHLER, JJ., concur.
McCORMAC, J., retired, of the Tenth Appellate District, assigned to active duty under authority of Section 6(C), Article IV, Ohio Constitution.
|