Blevins v. Hartman
2013 Ohio 3297
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- On May 26, 2006 Jerry Hartman, an emancipated adult tenant at Mansfield Manor with diagnosed bipolar/schizoaffective disorder, shot and killed two people (one a Mansfield Manor employee) and then killed himself using a shotgun from his parents’ home.
- Plaintiffs (estate representatives of the victims) sued Mansfield Manor (the housing operator) and the Estate of Richard Hartman (Jerry’s father) for wrongful death/negligence (and, as to Mansfield Manor, an intentional-tort theory against the employer).
- Richard Hartman died during litigation; his estate moved for summary judgment supported by his pre-death affidavit and the psychiatrist’s deposition. Plaintiffs submitted expert affidavits and police testimony arguing Richard should have known of Jerry’s dangerousness.
- Mansfield Manor moved for summary judgment only as to the Heckerd plaintiff (the non-employee) and on ordinary/gross negligence theories; it did not move for summary judgment on Blevins/Johnson’s intentional-tort claim.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the Estate of Richard Hartman and later entered a nunc pro tunc entry granting summary judgment to Mansfield Manor on Blevins/Johnson’s intentional-tort claim. Plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Richard Hartman owed a duty to plaintiffs for negligent storage/possession of the gun | Plaintiffs: Richard knew or should have known of Jerry’s mental illness/violent risk, creating a duty and triable issue | Estate: No special relationship or notice of violent propensities; affidavit shows no knowledge, so no duty or negligence | Affirmed — no duty; summary judgment for Estate appropriate |
| Whether expert opinions and police interviews created a genuine issue of material fact about Richard’s knowledge | Plaintiffs: Experts/police testimony show Richard should have known; affidavit is disputed | Estate: Only Richard’s affidavit is direct evidence; other evidence speculative as to what he actually knew | Affirmed — expert/opinion evidence speculative; no genuine dispute sufficient to defeat SJ |
| Whether the trial court could grant summary judgment sua sponte in favor of Mansfield Manor on Blevins/Johnson’s intentional-tort claim | Blevins/Johnson: Trial court improperly granted SJ on an issue Mansfield Manor never moved on; deprived them of fair opportunity to respond | Mansfield Manor: (did not move on intentional-tort claim for this plaintiff) | Reversed — trial court may not grant SJ sua sponte on issues not raised by parties; remanded for further proceedings |
| Scope of foreseeability and special-relationship principles for parental liability for adult child’s violent acts | Plaintiffs: Parent had responsibility because of son’s mental illness and access to a firearm | Estate: Parent of emancipated adult not liable absent evidence he ‘‘took charge’’ or had notice of violent propensities | Affirmed — parental duty limited; foreseeability not shown, relying on common-law principles |
Key Cases Cited
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (moving party’s initial burden and reciprocal burden of nonmoving party in summary judgment procedure)
- Mitseff v. Wheeler, 38 Ohio St.3d 112 (Ohio 1988) (nonmoving party must set forth specific facts showing triable issue)
- Gelbman v. Second Natl. Bank of Warren, 9 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 1984) (special relationships that can create duty to control third parties)
- Menifee v. Ohio Welding Prods., Inc., 15 Ohio St.3d 75 (Ohio 1984) (duty depends on foreseeability of injury)
- Vahila v. Hall, 77 Ohio St.3d 421 (Ohio 1997) (summary judgment improper where material fact is genuinely disputed)