Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

In 1998, Appellee was sentenced to thirteen years in prison on various drug and weapons charges. The district court granted Appellee’s writ of habeas corpus and ordered the state to release Appellee or grant him a new trial within a certain time. The state did not retry Appellee, and the charges against him were dismissed with prejudice. Thereafter, Appellee filed a complaint seeking a determination that he was a wrongfully imprisoned individual. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the state. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded with instructions to apply Mansaray v. State. On remand, the court of appeals again reversed the grant of summary judgment to the state, ruling that Appellee had satisfied all five elements of Ohio Rev. Code 2743.48(A). The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Appellee failed to satisfy all five elements of section 2743.48(A). View "James v. State" on Justia Law

Darlene Burnham brought a personal injury action against the Cleveland Clinic and Cleveland Clinic Health System (collectively, Clinic). During discovery, Burnham requested certain documents that the Clinic alleged were not discoverable because they were shielded by the attorney-client privilege. Burnham filed a motion to compel discovery. The trial court granted the motion to compel. The Clinic appealed, arguing that the documents were protected by the attorney-client privilege and were not discoverable. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, concluding that there was no final, appealable order to review because the Clinic had failed to establish that there would be prejudice resulting from disclosure of the documents. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a discovery order compelling the production of documents allegedly protected by the attorney-client privilege is a final, appealable order subject to immediate review because such an order causes harm and prejudice that cannot be meaningfully remedied by a later appeal; and (2) because the Clinic has plausibly alleged that the attorney-client privilege would be breached by disclosure of the requested materials, the order compelling the disclosure is a final, appealable order. View "Burnham v. Cleveland Clinic" on Justia Law

Respondents filed a lawsuit against Petitioners, asserting a claim for negligent misidentification. Petitioners filed motions for judgment on the pleadings or, alternatively, to certify questions of state law to the Supreme Court asserting that a claim of negligent misidentification sounds in defamation, and, under the one-year statute of limitations for defamation, Respondents’ claim was time-barred. The federal district court certified three questions of law to the Ohio Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held (1) a plaintiff does not have a cause of action in tort for negligent misidentification, and it would contravene public policy to allow such a claim; and (2) because no cause of action for negligent misidentification exists in Ohio, the certified questions are moot. View "Foley v. University of Dayton" on Justia Law

Dennis Carter sustained serious injuries when Larry Reese attempted to move a tractor-trailer that had pinned Carter’s leg between the trailer and a loading dock. Carter and his wife sued Reese. Reese asserted Ohio’s Good Samaritan statute as a defense. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Reese pursuant to the statute. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Reese was not liable in civil damages pursuant to Ohio’s Good Samaritan statute because (1) Reese administered emergency care at the scene of an emergency, and the statute expressly states that no person shall be liable in civil damages for acts performed at the scene of an emergency, and (2) no allegation of willful or wanton misconduct was asserted against Defendant. View "Carter v. Reese" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sustained injuries as a result of a motorcycle accident involving a Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (CEI) utility pole. Plaintiff and his wife sued CEI, FirstEnergy Service Company (First Energy), and their parent company (collectively, Defendants), asserting, inter alia, claims for negligence and qualified nuisance. The jury returned a verdict for Plaintiffs on their qualified nuisance and loss of consortium claims but returned a verdict for CEI and FirstEnergy on the negligence claim. Defendants appealed, arguing that Turner v. Ohio Bell Tel. Co. provided an absolute bar to liability. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, as a matter of law, CEI and FirstEnergy could not be held liable under any theory of liability asserted by Plaintiffs. View "Link v. FirstEnergy Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sued World Harvest Church (WHC) for claims arising from an incident involving Plaintiffs’ two-year-old son, who attended WHC’s daycare. Plaintiffs alleged that WHC’s employee had beaten their son with a knife. Final judgment was entered in favor of Plaintiffs in the amount of $2.87 million. The court of appeals affirmed. WHC subsequently filed suit against Grange Mutual Casualty Company, which insured WHC under a commercial liability insurance policy and an umbrella policy and had defended the matter but reserved its right to deny coverage. Plaintiffs alleged that Grange improperly refused to indemnify it for any portion of the judgment awarded to Plaintiffs. The trial court entered judgment in favor of WHC, finding that Grange was obligated to indemnify WHC in the amount of $1.47 million but that Grange was not responsible to indemnify WHC for the punitive damages awarded to Plaintiffs. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the abuse or molestation exclusion in the commercial liability insurance policy barred coverage for an award of damages based on WHC’s vicarious liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from WHC’s employee’s abuse of Plaintiff’s son while in WHC’s care and custody; and (2) the policy did not provide coverage for an award of attorney fees and postjudgment interest. View "World Harvest Church v. Grange Mut. Cas. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Daniel Stolz worked for a subcontractor on a construction project when he was injured in an accident on the job site. Prior to the accident, Messer had obtained authority from the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation to act as the self-insuring employer on the project, which gave Messer responsibility for providing workers’ compensation coverage for its own employees as well as the employees of enrolled subcontractors on the project. Stolz brought negligence claims against Messer Construction, the general contractor, and several subcontractors. A federal district court granted summary judgment to Messer as the self-insuring employer but denied summary judgment to the subcontractors, concluding that an enrolled subcontractor on a self-insured construction project is immune from claims made by its own employees but not from those made by employees of other enrolled subcontractors. The federal court then certified a question of state law to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court answered that subcontractors enrolled in a self-insured construction project plan are immune from tort claims for workplace injuries from employees of other enrolled subcontractors on the same project. View "Stolz v. J & B Steel Erectors, Inc." on Justia Law

Seventeen-year-old Kelli Baker was driving on a county road when one of her tires slipped off the right side of the road. The car hit a tree and caught on fire, killing Baker. Baker’s estate and parents filed a wrongful-death lawsuit against Wayne County and its employees. The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendants. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the edge drop that existed on the county road at the time of Baker’s accident could give rise to Defendants’ liability under Ohio Rev. Code 2744.02(B)(3) for negligently failing to keep “public roads” in repair. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that an edge drop at the limit of a paved roadway is not part of “public road” as defined in Ohio Rev. Code 2744.01(H), and therefore, Plaintiffs’ claims were barred by sovereign immunity. View "Baker v. Wayne County" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was at Indian Lake State Park, which is open to the public without an admission charge, when he was seriously injured by a rock thrown by an Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) boom mower that struck him in the eye. Plaintiff sued ODNR for negligence. The court of claims granted summary judgment for ODNR, concluding that because Plaintiff was a recreational user, ODNR had no duty to keep the park safe for Plaintiff’s entry or use. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that because Plaintiff claimed he was injured by the negligence of a park employee and not by a defect in the premises, the recreational user statute did not apply. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence in this case showed that Plaintiff’s injuries resulted from the alleged negligent operation of a boom mower, not from the condition of the premises; and (2) therefore, the recreational user statute does not preclude liability for Plaintiff’s negligence claim if Plaintiff can establish that negligence. View "Combs v. Ohio Dep’t of Natural Res., Div. of Parks & Recreation" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of her daughter, filed a civil suit against Defendant for assault, false imprisonment, emotional distress, and loss of consortium. Plaintiff requested compensatory and punitive damages. After Defendant failed to respond to the complaint, the trial court entered a default judgment against her. Before the damages hearing, Defendant died. The administrator of Defendant’s estate was substituted as a party. After a hearing, the trial court awarded compensatory damages to Plaintiff’s two daughters and concluded that punitive damages could not be properly awarded against the estate of a deceased tortfeasor. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that Ohio law permits an award of punitive damages against a deceased tortfeasor. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a punitive damages award is available in the limited circumstances presented in this case. Remanded to the trial court for a hearing on punitive damages and attorney fees. View "Whetstone v. Binner" on Justia Law