2014 Ohio 5468
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Plaintiffs Marc and Emily Dennis sued after Marc was bucked off a horse named Cash while trying the horse for purchase; he was injured on his second attempt to ride.
- Cash had a temperament rating of 5 (requiring an experienced rider); Marc represented himself as experienced but did not remove his spurs as repeatedly requested by trainer Golem.
- After the first violent buck and fall, Marc removed his spurs; Golem exercised Cash for about ten minutes, then Marc mounted again and was bucked a second time, sustaining a hip injury.
- Defendants: Nickajack Farms (owner), Bernadette Golem (trainer), and the seller/owners (Chiboroski) moved for summary judgment based on Ohio’s Equine Liability Law immunity.
- Plaintiffs argued an exception to immunity applied because defendants’ conduct was wanton misconduct; they also challenged exclusion of certain expert affidavits.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether genuine issues of fact precluded summary judgment | Dennis: factual disputes exist about defendants’ conduct and responsibility | Defendants: no disputed material facts; immunity applies | Court: plaintiffs’ general assertion unsupported; rejected as waived |
| Whether defendants’ conduct constituted wanton misconduct (equine-law exception) | Dennis: Golem failed to properly exercise/tune Cash, didn’t know Marc’s ability, allowed him to remount after a fall, and failed to intervene — creating great probability of harm | Defendants: Golem warned Marc about the horse, repeatedly told him to remove spurs, exercised the horse after the first fall, and Marc knew risks | Court: No evidence of wantonness; Golem took precautions and acted to make Cash safe; summary judgment for defendants affirmed |
| Admissibility/weight of expert affidavits on wantonness | Dennis: expert opinions show wanton conduct and create factual dispute | Defendants: affidavits add only legal conclusions; trial court excluded them or they do not create factual issues | Court: Expert affidavits expressing legal conclusions about wantonness would not create a fact issue; disposition would be unchanged |
| Cross-appeal by defendants (related issues) | — | — | Moot given affirmance of summary judgment for defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Loopco Industries, Inc., 66 Ohio St.3d 64 (1993) (summary judgment should be entered with circumspection)
- Dupler v. Mansfield Journal Co., 64 Ohio St.2d 116 (1980) (trial court may not weigh evidence on summary judgment)
- Murphy v. Reynoldsburg, 65 Ohio St.3d 356 (1992) (resolve doubts for nonmoving party on summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary-judgment standard: whether evidence requires jury)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (1996) (de novo review of summary judgment on appeal)
- Anderson v. City of Massillon, 134 Ohio St.3d 380 (2012) (definition of wanton misconduct)
- State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Chrysler Corp., 36 Ohio St.2d 151 (1973) (expert testimony that states legal conclusions is inadmissible)