 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Robinson v. Bates4/22/2005
{ } In this landlord-negligence case, we decide two issues. First, we hold that the open-and-obvious doctrine does not abrogate a landlord's statutory duty to keep leased premises in a fit and habitable condition. Second, in a case of first impression in Ohio, we hold that, under the collateral-source rule, a plaintiff's recovery of the reasonable value of her medical treatment is not limited to the amount paid by her insurance.
I. Jagged Concrete Slabs
{ } While in her driveway to get in her car, plaintiff-appellant Caroline Robinson twisted her foot and broke a bone. She sued her landlord, defendant-appellee Helen Gist Bates, Trustee, for negligence.
{ } Several days before Robinson's accident, Bates's grandson, acting as her agent, had hired a contractor to tear down the retaining walls on both sides of the driveway. The construction work had left jagged concrete slabs where the walls had been. For several days after the walls were torn down, Robinson maneuvered around the construction to get in and out of her car. Eventually, she twisted her foot when she stepped on an uneven concrete slab where the retaining wall had been.
{ } In her first assignment of error, Robinson asserts that the trial court erred when it directed a verdict in favor of Bates.
{ } To establish actionable negligence at trial, Robinson had to show the existence of a duty, a breach of that duty, and an injury proximately resulting from the breach. Typically, a duty may be established by common law, by legislative enactment, or by the particular facts and circumstances of the case. Where a legislative enactment imposes a specific duty for the safety of others, failure to perform that duty is negligence per se.
{ } Application of negligence per se in a tort action means that the plaintiff has definitively established that the defendant breached a duty that he or she owed to the plaintiff. But it is not a demonstration of liability per se because the plaintiff also has to prove proximate cause and damages.
II. Statutory Duty Trumps Open-and-Obvious Doctrine
{ } A landlord has many duties to a tenant. One statutory duty, under R.C. 5321.04(A)(2), provides, "A landlord who is a party to a rental agreement shall * * *
ake all repairs and do whatever is reasonably necessary to put and keep the premises in a fit and habitable condition." The Ohio Supreme Court has held that a landlord's violation of the duties in R.C. 5321.04(A)(2) constitutes negligence per se.
{ } In this case, the trial court concluded that, after viewing all the evidence in Robinson's favor, reasonable minds could come to but one conclusion and that conclusion was that Robinson had failed to establish her claim. Not so.
{ } A court of appeals reviews the trial court's ruling on a motion for a directed verdict de novo. Where reasonable minds can reach different conclusions regarding the evidence presented and where there is substantial, competent evidence to support the claim of the party against whom the motion is made, the motion for a directed verdict must be denied.
{ } The undisputed testimony of the parties established that the landlord's grandson, Walter Rice, hired a contractor to do numerous repairs on the property, a single-family house. The first thing the contractor did was to tear down the retaining walls on either side of the driveway. The loose concrete bricks and other rubble were piled at the end of the driveway towards the garage. A slightly raised and uneven concrete surface remained where the walls formerly stood.
{ } Rice testified that he told the contractor to put caut
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|