 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cohen v. University of Dayton10/28/2005
cluding insurance coverage, and the circumstances surrounding the negotiation of the settlement agreement, to the extent that those circumstances might involve fraud or collusion. Surely this could have been accomplished in a few hours of deposition. And if the University should seek to extend the scope of Morgan's deposition beyond reasonable limits, the trial court is available for consideration of a protective order curtailing the deposition.
{ } Although we acknowledge that the trial court is invested with substantial discretion in determining the scope and extent of discovery it will permit in connection with a summary judgment motion in a case involving a good-faith-settlement defense to a contribution claim, we conclude that the trial court in this case acted unreasonably, and therefore abused its discretion, when it refused to permit the University to take a deposition of Morgan, one of the two parties to the settlement agreement with Cohen. The University's Third Assignment of Error is sustained.
III.
{ } The University's First and Second assignments of error are as follows:
{ } "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING APPELLEE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
{ } "BY GRANTING APPELLEE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THE TRIAL COURT DEPRIVED APPELLANT OF ITS PROPERTY INTEREST IN ITS CAUSE OF ACTION WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND WITHOUT DUE COURSE OF LAW UNDER SECTION 16, ARTICLE I OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION."
{ } In these assignments of error, the University appears to be arguing that even considering the state of the evidence without including any evidence that it might have obtained as the result of the discovery it was prevented from conducting, the trial court erroneously granted summary judgment. In general, where a judgment of a trial court is reversed because of a prejudicial error in the course of the proceedings, the appropriate remedy is to reverse the judgment and remand the proceedings to be resumed at the point where the error occurred. Richman Bros. v. Amalgamated Workers (1956), 101 Ohio App. 459, 465.
{ } In sustaining the University's Third Assignment of Error, we have concluded that the trial court erred, to the University's prejudice, when it entered an order precluding the University from taking Morgan's deposition for purposes of responding to Morgan's motion for summary judgment. In applying the general rule concerning the proper remedy where a judgment of a trial court is reversed because of a procedural error, we conclude that the University's First and Second assignments of error are moot. Upon remand, the trial court will permit Morgan's deposition to be taken, while perhaps limiting the scope and extent of that deposition. The parties may then have additional evidence to submit to the trial court in support of, and in opposition to, Morgan's motion for summary judgment, thereby mooting the First and Second assignments of error, which depend upon the state of the evidence currently in the record.
{ } The University's First and Second assignments of error are overruled as moot.
IV.
{ } The University's Third Assignment of Error having been sustained, and its First and Second assignments of error having been overruled as moot, the judgment of the trial court is Reversed, and this cause is Remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
BROGAN, P.J., and WOLFF, J., concur.
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|