Eckmeyer v. McNealis, 2016 Ohio 7276

On March 15, 2011, Keith Eckmeyer and Jared McNealis were involved in a traffic collision; passenger James Chase was also injured and later sued both drivers in a separate action.
Eckmeyer sued McNealis for negligence (and his wife alleged loss of consortium) in Summit County Common Pleas Court; the case went to jury trial and returned a verdict for McNealis.
At trial credibility of drivers (and of passenger Chase) was central: both drivers claimed the light was green for them; Chase’s deposition supported McNealis’s version.
On cross-examination, defense counsel questioned Eckmeyer about whether Chase had sued him; Eckmeyer’s objection was overruled. The trial court refused to admit the Chase pleading but took judicial notice that Chase had filed a lawsuit and instructed the jury to accept that fact.
The appellate court found the trial court abused its discretion by permitting the line of questioning and by taking judicial notice of a separate-case filing, which prejudicially suggested Chase’s suit bore on Eckmeyer’s fault.
The Ninth District reversed and remanded for further proceedings, sustaining Eckmeyer’s first assignment of error and declining to address the second as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Eckmeyer)	Defendant's Argument (McNealis)	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion by admitting evidence and taking judicial notice of a separate lawsuit filed against Eckmeyer	Admission and judicial notice of the separate Chase suit was irrelevant or unduly prejudicial and improperly instructed the jury to accept it as fact	Any potential prejudice was cured because Chase’s deposition (supporting Eckmeyer not at fault) was read into evidence and the jury was instructed to consider deposition testimony	Reversed: trial court abused discretion; judicial notice of a separate case and questioning implying suit shows fault was improper and prejudicial

Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard explained)
State v. Lang, 129 Ohio St.3d 512 (Ohio 2011) (Evid.R. 403 requires weighing probative value against unfair prejudice)