 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Albright v. University of Toledo9/18/2001
APPEAL from the Ohio Court of Claims.
Archie Albright (individually and as personal representative of the Estate of Matthew Albright, deceased), Sandra Albright, Jason Albright, and Barbara Albright Kempra, plaintiffs-appellants, appeal a judgment of the Ohio Court of Claims granting a motion for summary judgment in favor of University of Toledo ("university"), defendant-appellee.
On October 18, 1996, Matthew, thirteen-years-old at the time, attended a music concert at Savage Hall on the university campus with Sandra (his mother), Archie (his father), Jason (his brother), Barbara (his sister), and his brother-in-law. Archie drove the family to Toledo and parked in a parking lot opposite Savage Hall on the east side of Douglas Road, a five-lane road. The concert concluded at 11:20 p.m., and the family exited Savage Hall to return to their vehicle, along with approximately forty to sixty other individuals who parked their cars in the same area. The Albrights were in the middle of the group, which proceeded across a portion of Douglas Road where there is no crosswalk or intersection. The location where they crossed Douglas Road was some distance north of a crosswalk at the intersection of Douglas Road and Oakwood Avenue, where there is a traffic control signal. Some members of the group crossed Douglas Road as a vehicle driven by Richard Ritz approached. The Albrights were in the middle of the street and stopped while others continued to run across the street. Matthew attempted to cross the street and was struck by Ritz. Matthew died as a result of his injuries.
On February 23, 2000, appellants filed a complaint against the university in the court of claims, alleging survivorship and wrongful death claims. The university filed its answer on March 27, 2000. On October 16, 2000, the university filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted by the trial court. An entry journalizing the judgment was filed on January 4, 2001. Appellants appeal the judgment of the trial court, asserting the following assignments of error:
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DETERMINING THAT THE UNIVERSITY WAS UNDER NO DUTY TO PROTECT MATTHEW ALBRIGHT FROM THE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH CROSSING DOUGLAS ROAD.
II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DETERMINING THAT CROSSING DOUGLAS ROAD WAS AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS DANGER WHICH OBVIATED ANY DUTY OWED TO MATTHEW ALBRIGHT AS A MATTER OF LAW.
III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE THAT THE UNIVERSITY DID NOT BREACH ITS DUTY TO MATTHEW ALBRIGHT.
IV. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE THAT THE UNIVERSITY'S BREACH OF DUTY WAS NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF MATTHEW ALBRIGHT'S DEATH.
Appellants' assignments of error assert the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the university. Pursuant to Civ.R. 56, summary judgment is appropriate when: (1) there is no genuine issue of material fact; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the nonmoving party, said party being entitled to have the evidence construed most strongly in his favor. Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc. (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 367, 369-370.
"When reviewing a trial court's ruling on summary judgment, the court of appeals conducts an independent review of the record and stands in the shoes of the trial court." Mergenthal v. Star Banc Corp. (1997), 122 Ohio App.3d 100, 103. The party seeking summary judgment initially bears the burden of informing the trial court of the basis for the motion and identifying portions of the record demonstrating an abse
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|