 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
O'Hail v. JG Mansfield5/30/2002
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
Plaintiffs-appellants Phyllis and Joseph O'Hail appeal the decision of the Richland County Court of Common Pleas, which granted summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees JG Mansfield, LLC, et al. in a personal injury law suit.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
On January 4, 1999, Phyllis O'Hail was shopping with her husband, Joseph O'Hail, [hereinafter appellants] at the Richland Mall. While walking in a common area of the mall, just across from the Food Court, Phyllis O'Hail's foot went out from underneath of her and she fell to her knee. Phyllis O'Hail was injured and as a result, incurred medical bills. Just before Phyllis O'Hail fell, Joseph O'Hail noticed an unidentified liquid substance on the floor. After the fall, the appellants proceeded to the mall office and filed an accident report. Thereupon, someone was sent to clean up the liquid from the floor. Evidence showed that the floor was otherwise clean. On September 28, 2000, appellants filed a personal injury suit against defendants-appellees JG Mansfield, LLC dba Richland Mall [hereinafter Richland Mall] and its insurer, American Community Mutual Insurance Company [hereinafter appellees]. The Complaint alleged that the Richland Mall was negligent. On August 1, 2001, appellees filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. On September 7, 2001, the trial court granted Summary Judgment in favor of the appellees and against the appellants. It is from the September 7, 2001, Judgment Entry granting summary judgment that appellants appeal, raising the following assignment of error:
THE COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT-APPELLEES AND AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANTS SINCE THERE WERE GENUINE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT WHICH PRECLUDED THE GRANTING OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
Summary judgment proceedings present the appellate court with the unique opportunity of reviewing the evidence in the same manner as the trial court. Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc. (1987), 30 Ohio St.3d 35, 36. As such, we must refer to Civ. R. 56(C) which provides, in pertinent part: Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleading, depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of evidence in the pending case and written stipulations of fact, if any, timely filed in the action, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. * * * A summary judgment shall not be rendered unless it appears from such evidence or stipulation and only therefrom, that 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, such party being entitled to have the evidence or stipulation construed most strongly in his favor.
Pursuant to the above rule, a trial court may not enter a summary judgment if it appears a material fact is genuinely disputed. The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing the trial court of the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. If the moving party satisfies this requirement, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to set forth specific facts demonstrating there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Vahila v. Hall (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 421, 429 (citing Dresher v. Burt (1966), 75 Ohio St.3d 280). It is based upon this standard that we review appellants' assignments of error. In the sole assignment of error, appellants contend that the trial court erred as a matter of law when it granted summary
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.
|
|