 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Albright v. University of Toledo9/18/2001
ate or foresee the probability of injury to anyone." Gedeon v. East Ohio Gas Co. (1934), 128 Ohio St. 335, 339. Rather, " t is enough that the probability of injury to those in the plaintiff's general situation should have been perceived by a reasonably prudent and careful person." Id. Whether a duty exists on the part of a particular defendant is a question of law for the court to decide. See Mussivand v. David (1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 314, 318.
Both parties agree that while Matthew was on its premises after leaving the concert, he was a business invitee. As a business invitee, the university owed Matthew the duty to exercise reasonable care to protect him from an unreasonable risk of physical harm. Jackson v. Kings Island (1979), 58 Ohio St.2d 357. Although the owner or occupier of the premises is not an insurer of the safety of his invitees, he does owe a duty to exercise ordinary or reasonable care for their protection. S.S. Kresge Co. v. Fader (1927), 116 Ohio St. 718; Railroad Co. v. Harvey (1907), 77 Ohio St. 235. The obligation of reasonable care is an extensive one, applicable to everything that threatens an invitee with an unreasonable risk of harm. Prosser on Torts (4 Ed.1971) 393, Section 61. The duty of due care also requires a business owner to provide a reasonably safe ingress and egress for the benefit of its business invitees. Tyrrell v. Investment Assoc., Inc. (1984), 16 Ohio App.3d 47. An ordinarily prudent person would take reasonable precautions to ensure that its patrons exit and enter the premises safely.
The question in the case at bar, however, is whether the duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition and provide reasonably safe ingress and egress for the benefit of the business invitee extends to injuries sustained while an invitee/pedestrian is on non-owned premises crossing between two portions of owned premises; that is, does a business owner have a duty to ensure that its invitees have a means of ingress and egress that will not harm the invitee/pedestrian walking across a public street between two disconnected portions of the owned premises.
Our review of Ohio case law fails to reveal any cases directly on point. We do, however, find several cases helpful in determining whether a duty existed under the present circumstances. In Shepherd v. United Parcel Serv. (1992), 84 Ohio App.3d 634, the decedent was travelling to a United Parcel Service ("UPS") facility, which was located within an industrial complex owned by the Portsmouth Area Growth Foundation ("PAGF"). In order to get to the UPS facility, the decedent had to drive on a public road leading into the industrial complex, cross over railroad tracks, and then continue on the public road to the UPS facility. While driving to the UPS facility, the decedent crossed the railroad tracks in his vehicle and was struck by a train. The decedent's estate filed a negligence action against PAGF and UPS. PAGF and UPS filed motions for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. The appellate court found that because PAGF never owned or exerted any control over the railroad crossing in question, PAGF owed no duty to third parties injured at the crossing site. The court also found that because the portion of the road in the industrial park adjoining the UPS facility was a public road, UPS was not liable to third parties injured at the railroad crossing site.
A case with a similar analysis and underlying fact pattern is cited by the university. In Dudziak-Martinez v. Beaver Park Co. (Feb. 14, 1990), Lorain App. No. 89CA004545, unreported, Beaver Park owned commercial premises that required business invitees to travel on a privat
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.
|
|