Barker v. Emergency Professional Serv., Inc.
2013 Ohio 5819
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Jeffrey Barker sues multiple defendants for medical malpractice arising from care after diving incident at the Speakers’ lake.
- Barker’s medical providers allegedly failed to immobilize his neck, order imaging, or consult trauma services, allegedly causing permanent spinal cord injury and quadriplegia.
- Dr. Harold Robinson filed a third-party complaint against Cynthia and Clarence Speaker seeking contribution or indemnification for Barker’s injuries.
- Speakers and Dr. Amir (and Forum Health) move to dismiss/join defenses; trial court later grants Speakers’ summary judgment on the third-party complaint and dismisses Robinson’s claim.
- Barkers move for partial summary judgment on affirmative defenses (contributory negligence, assumption of risk); Robinson withdraws some defenses, others argued moot.
- Trial court held that Robinson’s third-party claim failed to state a claim for indemnity or contribution under R.C. 2307.25, and that the Speakers were not joint tortfeasors with Robinson; appellate review affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Robinson and the Speakers joint tortfeasors? | Robinson argues joint tortfeasor status supports contribution against Speakers. | Speakers contend no joint tortfeasor relationship; premises liability separate from medical malpractice. | No joint tortfeasor relationship; dismissal affirmed. |
| Does Robinson have standing to seek contribution against the Speakers under R.C. 2307.25? | Robinson seeks contribution; statute allowed where joint liability exists. | No standing because not a joint tortfeasor or payment over; pre-relational injuries not apportionable. | Robinson lacks standing; contribution not available under statute as pled. |
| Is the third-party complaint barred by the statute of limitations? | Contribution claims timely if properly pled under the statute. | Limitations run for bodily injury; members of third-party action barred. | Statute of limitations barred the claim as pleaded. |
| Was the partial summary judgment on affirmative defenses moot because of withdrawal of defenses? | Barkers’ motion was not moot; defenses remained viable at time of ruling. | Robinson withdrew the defenses; ruling moot. | Mootness; the appealable finality not achieved; error harmless. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleveland Elec. Ill. Co. v. PUC, 76 Ohio St.3d 521 (1996) ( Civ.R. 12(B)(6) standard and de novo review of dismissal)
- Perrysburg Twp. v. City of Rossford, 103 Ohio St.3d 79 (2004) ( finality and appealability of pretrial orders; final judgment rule)
- Motorists Mut. Ins. Co. v. Huron Rd. Hosp., 73 Ohio St.3d 391 (1995) (contribution between tortfeasors for indivisible injuries)