Coeurvie v. McGonigal
2017 Ohio 2634
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Landlords Rick and Wendy McGonigal owned a rental house in Richfield, Ohio; Tenant Sharron Coeurvie leased it starting April 15, 2010 and lived there full-time from September 2010 until she vacated February 24, 2011.
- Tenant observed and later reported mold and moisture in a bathroom cupboard in February 2011; health-department and private testing that month revealed mold in the basement and other areas and identified a failed sump pump and standing water.
- Landlords learned of the problems only after a March 2011 health-department letter; they promptly had the sump pump replaced and had the basement washed and repainted.
- Tenant sued for negligence and negligence per se under Ohio landlord-tenant and local health-code provisions, alleging mold exposure caused multiple health problems; Landlords counterclaimed for unpaid rent but later dismissed that claim.
- After a jury trial returned a defense verdict, the trial court denied Tenant’s post-trial motions; Tenant appealed raising claims that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, the court erred denying JNOV, a new trial was warranted, and the jury instruction was improper.
- The Ninth District affirmed, holding the jury reasonably found Landlords lacked actual or constructive notice of the mold prior to Tenant’s February 23, 2011 report.
Issues
| Issue | Coeurvie's Argument | McGonigal's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the verdict was against manifest weight of the evidence | Evidence (mold tests, expert medical causation, photos) established negligence and causation | Jury reasonably could credit Landlords’ testimony that they neither knew nor should have known of mold before Feb. 23, 2011 | Affirmed — no manifest miscarriage of justice; credibility determinations for the jury |
| Whether JNOV should have been granted | Conceded mold presence meant liability; thus judgment should be entered for her | Mold’s presence on Feb. 23, 2011 does not establish Landlords’ prior knowledge or constructive notice | Denied — reasonable minds could differ on notice; JNOV improper |
| Whether a new trial was warranted (weight of evidence or counsel misconduct) | Verdict against weight; alleged defense counsel misconduct | No controlling error shown; App.R. violations in brief limit review of misconduct claim | Denied — weight claim rejected; misconduct argument inadequately developed and not considered |
| Whether jury instruction erred by using word "significant" to modify "risk" | Instruction raised the threshold for landlord negligence and conflicted with law | No authority provided by Coeurvie to show wording was improper; issue not developed | Denied — appellate brief failed to support or develop argument; instruction challenge not reviewed |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (standard for reviewing manifest weight in civil cases)
- Robinson v. Bates, 112 Ohio St.3d 17 (2006) (elements of negligence and landlord duties under Ohio law)
- Sikora v. Wenzel, 88 Ohio St.3d 493 (2000) (landlord negligence per se under landlord-tenant statute excused if landlord neither knew nor should have known of the condition)
- Osler v. City of Lorain, 28 Ohio St.3d 345 (1986) (standard for judgment notwithstanding the verdict)
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 95 Ohio St.3d 512 (2002) (de novo standard of review for JNOV rulings)