 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Walker v. Thomas5/14/1998
JUDGMENT: Affirmed.
PER CURIAM
In this accelerated case, appellants Shereda, Shekeda, and Deevon Walker appeal a decision by the trial court in favor of appellee Leroy Thomas in their action for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident. The Walkers assign the following two errors for our review:
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHERE GENUINE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT WERE PRESENTED BY CONTRADICTORY AND INCONSISTENT AFFIDAVITS CONCERNING THE PHYSICAL AND MENTAL CONDITION OF A DRIVER IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO AND AFTER AN AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT IF THE DRIVER IS CLAIMING TO BE ABSOLVED FROM LIABILITY BASED UPON COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE.
II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHERE LIABILITY FOR BODILY INJURIES SUSTAINED IN AN AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENT IS GROUNDED ON NEGLIGENCE PER SE DUE TO A VIOLATION OF A CITY ORDINANCE REQUIRING THAT ASSURED CLEAR DISTANCE BE MAINTAINED EVEN THOUGH THE LIABLE DRIVER MAY HAVE HAD A TOTALLY INCAPACITATING MEDICAL CONDITION OCCURRING PRIOR TO AND IMMEDIATELY BEFORE AND SOLELY CAUSING THE ACCIDENT.
Having reviewed the record and the legal arguments of the parties, we affirm the decision of the trial court. The apposite facts follow.
Shereda Walker, along with her minor children, Shekeda and Deevon, filed a personal injury action against Leroy Thomas after an automobile accident in which Thomas rear-ended the Walkers' car. The complaint alleged, inter alia, that Thomas violated North Randall City Ordinance Section 432.09 by failing to maintain an assured clear distance from the Walkers' vehicle.
In Thomas' answer to the complaint, he raised several defenses including the assertion that he was immune from liability because he blacked out at the time of the accident. Thomas later filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that his unforeseeable loss of consciousness relieved him of liability under the authority of Lehman v. Haynam (1956), 164 Ohio St. 595. The trial court granted Thomas' motion for summary judgment. This appeal followed.
The Walkers challenge the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of Thomas. Our standard of review for summary judgment is the same as that of the trial court. Consequently, we review cases de novo. Brown v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1993), 87 Ohio App.3d 704, citing Midwest Specialties, Inc. v. Firestone Co. (1988), 42 Ohio App.3d 6. In applying the de novo standard, we review the trial court's decision independently and without deference to the trial court's determination. Id. at 711.
Summary judgment is appropriate when the following have been established: (1) that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact; (2) that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that party being entitled to have the evidence construed most strongly in its favor. Brown, supra, citing Bostic v. Connor (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 144, 146; cf., also State ex rel. Coulverson v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (1991), 62 Ohio St.3d 12, 14; Civ.R. 56(C).
The burden of showing no genuine issue as to any material fact is on the party who requested the summary judgment. Dresher v. Burt (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 280, citing Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co. (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 64, citing Hamlin v. McAlpin Co. (1964), 175 Ohio St. 517, 519-520. However, the non-moving party has the initial burden of showing a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Mitseff v. Wheeler (19
Page 1 2 3 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|