Adamson, Admr. v. Buckenmeyer
2020 Ohio 4241
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- On August 4, 2016 a head-on collision in Fulton County, Ohio killed Joan Adamson and injured Amanda Adamson and defendant Carrie Buckenmeyer. Buckenmeyer later pleaded guilty to aggravated vehicular homicide in 2017.
- Amanda Adamson (as administrator) sued Buckenmeyer June 6, 2018 for negligent/reckless operation causing death and injury.
- Buckenmeyer filed a pro se answer (June 21, 2018) and, after obtaining counsel, filed an Answer and a Third‑Party Complaint against Norma Holguin on December 6, 2018 alleging Holguin caused the crash. The third‑party complaint sought no contribution/indemnity.
- Holguin moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) as time‑barred by the two‑year statute of limitations (R.C. 2305.10); the trial court granted dismissal with prejudice.
- Repeated discovery defaults by Buckenmeyer led to multiple motions to compel; the court ordered itemized document responses (July 2, 2019). After continued noncompliance and work‑product objections to experts’ materials, the court found waiver and willful bad faith and rendered default judgment on liability for Adamson (Oct. 11, 2019). A damages hearing resulted in awards of $17,090 (funeral/compensatory) and $500,000 (intangible damages).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Buckenmeyer’s third‑party complaint against Holguin was time‑barred under R.C. 2305.10 | Adamson: the third‑party claim accrued Aug 4, 2016 and was filed after the two‑year limit, so dismissal is proper | Buckenmeyer: the third‑party claim relates back to earlier filings (pro se answer/complaint) or was tolled by asserted defenses | Court: Affirmed dismissal — third‑party claim accrued Aug 4, 2016 and the Dec 6, 2018 pleading was untimely; relation‑back/tolling arguments fail |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in imposing sanctions/default judgment for discovery violations and work‑product objections | Adamson: Buckenmeyer waived work‑product by formally disclosing experts; she failed to comply with court orders and thus sanctions (default on liability) were justified | Buckenmeyer: she complied or legitimately asserted attorney work‑product protection for experts’ materials; needed time to organize/explain experts’ materials | Court: No abuse of discretion — expert disclosure waived work‑product as to opinions/materials; record shows willful inaction/bad faith; default on liability and award of damages affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Alford v. Collins‑McGregor Operating Co., 95 N.E.3d 382 (standard for Civ.R. 12(B)(6) de novo review)
- LGR Realty, Inc. v. Frank & London Ins. Agency, 98 N.E.3d 241 (12(B)(6) dismissal only when complaint conclusively shows time‑barred)
- Erwin v. Bryan, 929 N.E.2d 1019 (court cannot extend statutory limitations)
- LaBarbera v. Batsch, 227 N.E.2d 55 (failure to commence within statute warrants dismissal with prejudice)
- Toney v. Berkemer, 453 N.E.2d 700 (sanctions/default for discovery reviewed for abuse of discretion where willfulness shown)
- Squire, Sanders & Dempsey LLP v. Givaudan Flavors Corp., 937 N.E.2d 533 (scope of attorney work‑product and good cause standard)
- Med. Mut. of Ohio v. Schlotterer, 909 N.E.2d 1237 (de novo review for legal questions about work‑product)
- Burnham v. Cleveland Clinic, 89 N.E.3d 536 (Civ.R. 26 treats work‑product separate from privilege)
- Clinger v. Duncan, 141 N.E.2d 156 (criminal guilty plea admissible in subsequent civil action)