Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

Articles Posted in Supreme Court of Ohio
by
The Supreme Court dismissed this appeal from the decision of the common pleas court entering a temporary restraining order (TRO) prohibiting Appellants from publishing the personal identifying information of Ryan Olthaus, a Cincinnati police officer, holding that the appeal was moot.Olthaus filed a complaint against Appellants alleging, among other claims, defamation and false-light invasion of privacy. The common pleas court granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) restraining Appellants from publicly disseminating Olthaus's personal identifying information. Appellants appealed the TRO. The court of appeals concluded that the TRO was not a final, appealable order. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that this matter was moot because the TRO expired. View "M.R. v. Niesen" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court granted the original actions filed in this Court seeking a writ of mandamus and a writ of prohibition to compel Judge Megan E. Shanahan to allow M.R. to proceed in a lawsuit using a pseudonym and partially sealing M.R.'s affidavit at his request, holding that Judge Shanahan abused her discretion by allowing M.R. to proceed using a pseudonym.M.R., a Cincinnati police officer using a pseudonym, filed a complaint for injunctive relief alleging that Defendants, several people, had publicly made the false claim that he was a white supremacist. M.R. filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and an affidavit in support of the motion along with his complaint. Judge Shanahan granted the request. Relators, the Cincinnati Enquirer and Eugene Volokh, filed separate actions seeking access to M.R.'s affidavit and to prevent Judge Shanahan from continuing to permit M.R. to use a pseudonym. The Supreme Court granted the writs, holding that M.R.'s privacy interests did not substantially outweigh the presumption of open judicial proceedings. View "State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Shanahan" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals granting a writ ordering the Industrial Commission of Ohio to vacate its order awarding compensation to Cami Bowman, holding that the court of appeals correctly concluded that the Commission abused its discretion.Bowman sought compensation for the permanent partial loss of her sight based on a seventy percent bilateral loss of vision. The Commission awarded compensation based on only a forty-five percent loss of sight in the left eye, maintaining a prior award based on a sixty-seven percent loss of sight in the right eye. The court of appeals granted Bowman a writ ordering the Commission to vacate its order and award her requested compensation, ruling that the Commission abused its discretion by relying on a portion of a physician's report that the physician had disclaimed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Commission failed to base its decision on medical evidence. View "State ex rel. Bowman v. Industrial Commission" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court declined in this case to recognize an exception to the general rule that an adjacent landowner generally owes no duty of care to a motorist who leaves the regularly traveled portion of the road and strikes a stationary object in the right-of-way, holding that Defendants in this case did not owe a duty of care to a motorist with respect to their mailbox.Plaintiff sustained catastrophic injuries as a result of his collision with Defendants' reinforced mailbox after hitting a patch of ice and leaving the ordinarily traveled portion of the road. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants, concluding that they owed no duty of care to Plaintiff. The court of appeals affirmed. On appeal, Defendants asked the Supreme Court to hold that an adjacent landowner owes a duty of care to a motorist who unintentionally strays from the regularly traveled portion of the road if the landowner has consciously created a hazard in the right-of-way with knowledge of the danger it would present to such a motorist. The Supreme Court declined to do so and affirmed, holding that Defendants did not owe Plaintiff a duty of care with respect to their mailbox. View "Snay v. Burr" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court held that when a complaint invokes an exception to a government employee's immunity under Ohio Rev. Code 2744.03(A)(6)(b), notice pleading suffices and that the plaintiff may not be held to a heightened pleading standard.Appellant, the grandmother of G.B., who died when she was two years old, filed suit against Hamilton County, the county's commissioners, the Hamilton County Department of Job and Family Services (HCJFS), and the individual HCJFS caseworkers involved in G.B.'s case, claiming that G.B. was living with violent and abusive parents and that her death was preventable. The trial court granted judgment for the pleadings in favor of Defendants, concluding that they were statutorily immune from suit. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the complaint in this case met the applicable notice-pleading standard. View "Maternal Grandmother v. Hamilton County Department of Job & Family Services" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Tenth District Court of Appeals compelling the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (OPERS) to reverse its denial of Appellant's application for disability benefits, holding that there was no error.After sustaining a fall while working for the state as a highway technician Appellant applied to OPERS for disability benefits. OPERS denied Powell's application. Appellant then filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus asking the Tenth District to issue a writ compelling OPERS to reverse its denial of his application. The Tenth District found that OPERS's decision was supported by some evidence in the record and denied the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that some evidence supported OPERS's decision, and Appellant did not establish that any evidence should have been excluded from OPERS's consideration. View "State ex rel. Powell v. Ohio Public Employees Retirement System" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals denying a writ of mandamus compelling the Ohio Industrial Commission to vacate its orders rejecting a proposed settlement between Employee and Employer, holding that the court of appeals correctly denied the writ.Employee suffered a work-related injury, and his workers' compensation claim was allowed. Employee applied for an award of additional compensation due to Employer's alleged violation of specific safety requirements (VSSRs). Employer and Employee subsequently submitted a proposed settlement for approval by the Commission. A staff hearing officer rejected the settlement as neither fair nor equitable and then granted Employee's request for a VSSR award. Employer sought a writ of mandamus compelling the Commission to vacate its orders and approve the settlement, but the court of appeals denied the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Employer's three propositions of law are rejected. View "State ex rel. Zarbana Industries, Inc. v. Industrial Commission" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals denying Appellant's complaint for a writ of mandamus to compel the Lucas County Prosecutor's Office to bring felonious-assault charges against Ronald Collins and Courtney Lykans for injuries that Appellant's infant daughter sustained while she was in their care, holding that the court of appeals did not abuse its discretion.After Appellant's daughter sustained life-threatening injuries Lykans and Collins were indicted on third-degree felony counts of child endangering. Lykans pled no contest to the charge, and Collins pled no contest to an amended fourth-degree felony charge of attempting child endangering. Plaintiff then filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus asking the court of appeals to order the prosecutor's office to file felonious-assault charges and Lykans and Collins. The court of appeals granted summary judgment in favor of the prosecutor. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant did not establish that he had a clear legal right to the requested relief or that the prosecutor had a clear legal duty to provide it. View "State ex rel. Whittaker v. Lucas County Prosecutor's Office" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals denying U.S. Tubular Products, Inc.'s complaint in mandamus ordering the Industrial Commission to vacate its decision requesting John Roush's request for an award of additional compensation, holding that the Commission's decision was supported by evidence in the record.Under Ohio Const. art. II, 35, a worker who sustains injuries as a result of her employer's violation of a specific safety requirement (VSSR) may seek an award of additional compensation. Roush sustained injuries while working at U.S. Tubular, and his workers' compensation claim was allowed for numerous conditions. Roush later filed an application for a VSSR award, claiming that U.S. Tubular had violated specific safety requirements set forth in the Ohio Administrative Code. The Commission granted a VSSR award of an additional twenty-five percent in compensation. U.S. Tubular filed a mandamus complaint seeking a writ compelling the Commission to vacate the VSSR award. The court of appeals denied the writ. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Commission's determinations were supported by evidence in the record. View "State ex rel. U.S. Tubular Products, Inc. v. Industrial Commission of Ohio" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court answered questions certified by the court of appeals in the negative and affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals reversing the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Akron General Medical Center (AGMC) on the issue of whether AGMC was liable for a cause of action for negligent hiring, retention, or supervision, holding that the grant of summary judgment was inappropriate.Malieka Evans filed a complaint alleging that she had been sexually abused and assaulted by Dr. Amir Shahideh, one of AGMC's employees, while seeking treatment at AGMC. The trial court granted summary judgment for AGMC based on Evans's failure to have filed a cause of action against Dr. Shahideh and her inability to establish the doctor's civil liability or criminal guilt. The court of appeals reversed and certified to the Supreme Court two questions of law. The Supreme Court held (1) a plaintiff need not show that an employee has been adjudicated civilly liable or has been found guilty of a crime in order for the plaintiff to maintain a negligent hiring, retention, or supervision claim against an employer; (2) the statute of limitations for such a claim is not affected by the statute of limitations governing the underlying legally wrongful conduct of the employee; and (3) summary judgment was improper. View "Evans v. Akron General Medical Center" on Justia Law