 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
LaPlaca v. Brunswick Ambassador Lanes12/12/1988
PRYATEL, chief Justice.
Plaintiffs-appellants Betty LaPlaca and Joseph LaPlaca appeal from a summary judgment granted in favor of defendant-appellee Brunswick Ambassador Lanes.
On August 19, 1986, Betty LaPlaca filed a personal injury complaint. Betty LaPlaca sought to recover damages arising out of a fall which allegedly occurred while she was bowling at Brunswick Ambassador Lanes. In an amended complaint, LaPlaca's husband, Joseph, sued to recover for loss of hiswife's services and consortium. Defendant filed an answer denying plaintiffs' allegation and asserting several defenses.
Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment and based it on Betty LaPlaca's deposition. Plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment based on Betty LaPlaca's affidavit.
According to LaPlaca's deposition, she participated in a bowling league that met once a week at defendant's facility. On March 28, 1985, while using lane 38, LaPlaca fell as a result of her foot sticking on an unidentified substance in the lane. On the day in question, LaPlaca had bowled three frames in that lane prior to her fall. LaPlaca had bowled at the facility approximately thirty or forty times before the date of her fall.
Prior to the incident, LaPlaca had noticed some sticking on lane 38:
"Q. How many times before the date of the accident had you experienced sticking on the lanes?
"A. I don't recall.
"Q. A dozen?
"A. It's hard-it's hard to say because I mean, you know, depending.
"Q. Once? Do you have any idea how many times, once, twice, a dozen, half dozen? Just a ballpark figure to give me an idea.
"A. I would say about a dozen times.
"* * *
"Q. On that date had anyone experienced a sticking problem prior to your fall on lane 38?
"A. Yes, there was.
"Q. Did you experience a sticking problem on lane 38 prior to your fall on that date?
"A. I don't understand what you are saying.
"Q. On the date of your accident did you experience a sticking problem on lane 38 prior to your fall?
"A. I'm trying to think. I did stick, but when I did it was 'How can I say it? It was just like your foot just goes, but nothing to you know, at the time"
"Q. On lane 38?
"A. Yes.
"Q. On lane 38 prior to your fall on that date, you did have some sticking?
"A.Yes, we did.
"Q. When you say 'we' do you mean yourself and the other people that were bowling on that lane?
"A. Yes.
"Q. And did they advise you that they were also experiencing some sticking on lane 38 that day?
"A. Oh, God, it's hard to recall that. I mean, they did, somebody did say something to me but I didn't take it, you know," (Emphasis added.)
LaPlaca had also observed others experience the stickiness:
"Q. Did you ever witness anyone fall at the lanes due to a sticking problem?
"A. No, but I've seen them stick, get stuck, but I've never seen them fall.
"Q. So you had witnessed other people stick besides yourself?
"A. Yes." (Emphasis added.)
In her affidavit attached to the supplemental brief in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, LaPlaca admits she knew of the presence of the sticky substance on lane 38; however, LaPlaca attempts to clarify the extent to which she realized a hazard existed at the defendant's premises:
"3. I have used lane number 38, and other lanes, at Brunsw
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.
|
|