 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Albright v. University of Toledo9/18/2001
to the street. To the contrary, Matthew purposely and voluntarily entered the five-lane public street from the university's premises, was told by his father to be careful of traffic while crossing the street, and safely crossed three lanes of traffic before being struck in the fourth lane. While we can envision hypothetical factual scenarios that would seem to call out for following the analyses of these foreign jurisdictions, we decline to do so in the present case.
Because of the particular underlying circumstances involved, we find it unwise to use the current case as a springboard to part ways with the binding Ohio case law that refuses to extend a duty to injuries sustained by a business invitee on premises not owned and controlled by the business.
Appellants assert alternatively that even if the university did not originally have a duty to protect its business invitees while they were crossing a public road not under its control, the university assumed such a duty toward its business invitees. In Doe v. Cub Foods of Ohio, Inc. (1996), 115 Ohio App.3d 473, this court found a store may assume the duty to provide security in an area of the parking lot immediately in front of the store where an attack upon a business invitee occurred, even though the store did not possess or control the parking lot. We stated that we did not read Simpson to foreclose the possibility that one not in possession and control of a premises could nevertheless assume a duty with regard to that property. See id. at 476.
Although in the present case, the university did assume the duty to provide security during and after the concert for invitees on its premises, appellants admit on page eight of their merit brief that the university did not assume any duty whatsoever to assist pedestrians crossing Douglas Road. It is also undisputed that the fifteen law enforcement officers assigned to control vehicular traffic were not assigned to assist pedestrian traffic. Appellants concede that the security personnel were merely assisting vehicles exiting various "VIP" parking lots and were not providing for the safety of pedestrians "in any way." In addition, we also do not believe that any genuine issue of material fact is raised in the university's manual for campus security, Part IV, Section III(D)(5), which orders all officers selected to work a special event identify safety problems within their assigned areas and attempt to eliminate them to the extent possible, and if not possible, notify the officer in charge to devise a plan for handling any resulting problems. It has been held with respect to a police department that a governmental agency's internal policies are not law and, thus, do not establish a duty. Stone v. Ohio State Highway Patrol (1993), 63 Ohio Misc.2d 351, 354. Notwithstanding, this university policy does not indicate that its security personnel were under a duty to assist pedestrians crossing public streets. The policy also specifically limits officers to addressing safety problems within their own assigned areas. The evidence submitted by the parties demonstrates no security personnel were assigned to the portion of Douglas Road at which the incident took place.
Further, it is well-established that to be liable for voluntarily assuming a duty to perform, one must reasonably rely upon that assumption to be owed the duty of ordinary care. Best v. Energized Substation Serv., Inc. (1993), 88 Ohio App.3d 109, 115. In the present case, appellants failed to produce any evidence demonstrating they reasonably relied upon the university's assumption of any duty to assist pedestrians crossing the middle of a public street after exiting a concert. As explained above, appellants admit they witnes
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.
|
|