Cordell v. White, 113 N.E.3d 1

On Oct. 7, 2015, Cordell (plaintiff) was landscaping in a grassy ditch beside C.R. 43; White (defendant) was driving on the road and struck Cordell, causing serious injuries.
Cordell sued for negligence and damages; parties agreed to a bench trial limited to liability and comparative fault.
At bench trial, White testified he was driving lawfully in his lane (~30 mph), saw the workers off the roadway, waved, and had no time to react before impact; he denied distraction or impairment.
Cordell and two coworkers testified Cordell was working on the grass/ditch edge, did not recall the impact, and one witness was unsure whether White may have been looking at his phone. No one saw the collision itself.
Trial court found Cordell failed to prove White was negligent by a preponderance of the evidence and therefore did not reach comparative fault; court entered judgment for White.
The appellate court reviewed the manifest-weight challenge and affirmed, finding competent, credible evidence supporting the trial court’s conclusion that White had no reason to expect a pedestrian in his right-of-way and no time to react.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether White was negligent in striking Cordell (i.e., whether plaintiff met burden to prove breach and proximate cause)	Cordell argued the evidence (witness testimony and circumstantial facts) corroborated that White was negligent and in the roadway when struck	White argued he was lawfully in his lane, not distracted or speeding, had no reason to expect Cordell would enter his right-of-way, and had no time to discover or avoid Cordell	Court held Cordell failed to prove negligence by a preponderance; judgment affirmed (trial court’s finding supported by competent, credible evidence)

Deming v. Osinski, 24 Ohio St.2d 179 (1969) (driver in right-of-way need not continuously look for pedestrians violating that right unless peril is foreseeable)
Hester v. Dwivedi, 89 Ohio St.3d 575 (2000) (proximate cause requires actual cause and sufficient connectedness to impose liability)
Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (2012) (standard for manifest-weight review in bench trials and appellate review of factual findings)
Biery v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 156 Ohio St. 75 (1951) (negligence is not presumed; each party presumed to have exercised ordinary care until rebutted)
Meyer v. Rapacz, 108 Ohio St.3d 494 (2006) (driver operating lawfully in lane not negligent where pedestrian outside crosswalk was not foreseeable peril)