 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Albright v. University of Toledo9/18/2001
sed no security personnel or law enforcement officers assisting pedestrians across Douglas Road or any other public street, and that, indeed, there were none. Matthew's father testified that the four university police and fifteen city of Toledo officers on duty that evening were "just standing around." In addition, in the context of voluntary assumption of duty, appellants cannot claim they reasonably relied upon the university's security policy to provide Matthew assistance in crossing Douglas Road when there was no evidence that appellants were aware the policy existed at the time of the incident. Because appellants have not demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact that the university voluntarily assumed a duty toward Matthew with regard to crossing Douglas Road, this argument is without merit.
For the foregoing reasons, we find appellants did not raise a genuine issue of material fact demonstrating the university owed a duty to Matthew while he crossed a public street in order to get to a parking lot on the university's premises. Thus, appellants' first assignment of error is overruled. Because a plaintiff must demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact as to all four elements in a negligence action in order to withstand summary judgment, we need not address the breach, proximate cause, and damage elements of appellants' claim. Therefore, appellants' second, third, and fourth assignments of error are moot, and we decline to address them. See App.R. 12(A)(1)(c).
Accordingly, we find the trial court did not err in granting the university's motion for summary judgment. Appellants' first assignment of error is overruled, appellants' second, third, and fourth assignments of error are moot, and the judgment of the Ohio Court of Claims is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
BRYANT, P.J., concurs.
KENNEDY, J., concurs in judgment only.
|