 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Albright v. University of Toledo9/18/2001
e grade crossing and cross railroad tracks in order to get to the premises. The appellants were injured or killed when a train struck a van they occupied while attempting to get to Beaver Park's business premises. The appellants filed a negligence action against Beaver Park, claiming Beaver Park owed a duty to business invitees to make safe the ingress and egress to the business premises. Beaver Park filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. On appeal, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, noting that if it were to find in favor of the appellants, it would have to extend premises liability in Ohio beyond the current basis for liability, possession or control, to a basis analogous to strict liability, liability without a showing of fault. The court of appeals found:
Under the circumstances of the case sub judice, Beaver Park's business invitees are not placed in danger because those invitees are required to cross the railroad property. The danger arises only when a business invitee, and a train rightfully using the railroad property, simultaneously cross. Beaver Park cannot stop the railroad from rightfully using railroad property nor anticipate any negligent act attributable to the railroad. Beaver Park cannot make the grade crossing safe for business invitees who choose to cross when the railroad is rightfully using their property. Id.
The analyses and reasoning utilized by the courts in Shepherd and Dudziak-Martinez also may be applied to the facts in the present case. As in both cases, in the present case Matthew was a business invitee who attempted to cross non-owned premises in order to get to the owned premises. The university neither controlled nor possessed the property upon which the accident took place. Further, as the court in Shepherd found, a business owner is not liable to third parties for injuries occurring on a public road while the third party is attempting to enter its premises. In addition, similar to what the court of appeals found in Dudziak-Martinez, the university could not stop vehicles from rightfully using a public street or make the public street safe for business invitees who voluntarily choose to cross when vehicles are rightfully using such street. Several other cases with similar circumstances to each other are also useful in determining the duty of the university to Matthew and other business invitees for injuries that may be sustained while not on premises owned by the university. These cases also discuss the necessity of the business owner's control and possession of the property upon which the business invitee is injured in order for a duty to arise. In Martin v. Happy's Restaurant & Lounge (June 8, 1992), Stark App. No. CA-8816, unreported, appellant, a business invitee to a bar, was injured in a fight with third parties outside the bar. Appellant filed a negligence action against the bar owner. The trial court granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of the bar owner. On appeal, the court of appeals stated that appellant failed to produce any case law to support extending a business owner's liability beyond the business premises and that the court was not aware of any such authority. Thus, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court's decision finding that a business owner has no duty of care to insure the safety of its business invitees on public streets.
In Carr v. Brock (June 5, 1989), Butler App. No. CA88-09-136, unreported, the trial court granted summary judgment to a bar owner for negligence claims filed against him by two business invitees who were injured in a fight on adjacent, non-owned property where they parked their cars. The court of appeals affirmed. The appellate court found
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.
|
|