Figueroa v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Auth., 2021 Ohio 2268

Figueroa, riding a bicycle on Detroit Ave. in Cleveland where a bike lane ends and merges into regular traffic, collided with the passenger side of a GCRTA paratransit bus driven by employee Rodney Bennett. CCTV on the bus captured the incident but is ambiguous whether the bus encroached on the bike lane at the moment of impact.
Figueroa suffered serious hip injuries and substantial medical expenses; his wife asserted loss of consortium.
Plaintiffs sued GCRTA for negligence; GCRTA moved for summary judgment, asserting statutory immunity exceptions did not apply or plaintiffs were comparatively negligent and the bus had the right of way.
The trial court granted GCRTA summary judgment; plaintiffs appealed to the Eighth District Court of Appeals.
The appellate court reversed and remanded the negligence/loss-of-consortium claims, finding genuine issues of material fact about whether the bus encroached on the bicycle lane; it affirmed denial of plaintiffs’ motion to enforce an alleged prior agreement to try liability only because the plaintiffs failed to supply a hearing transcript for review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether summary judgment was proper on negligence/loss-of-consortium claims	Video and other evidence create factual disputes whether the bus encroached on the bike lane and whether GCRTA breached a duty	Bus driver had right of way; plaintiffs were negligent (violated traffic law); statutory immunity and lack of GCRTA breach support judgment	Reversed: genuine issue of material fact exists about bus encroachment; summary judgment improper
Whether trial court erred denying motion to enforce prior agreement to try liability only	Parties had agreed (by emails and proposed jury instructions) to try liability only with stipulated damages	Any alleged agreement arose in a voluntarily dismissed action, lacked consideration, and statutory rules bar enforcement; appellate record lacks transcript to review hearing	Affirmed (appellate court declined to review due to absence of transcript; presumes regularity of proceedings)

Pappas v. Ippolito, 177 Ohio App.3d 625, 895 N.E.2d 610 (8th Dist. 2008) (standard of de novo review on summary judgment appeals in the district)
Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 662 N.E.2d 264 (Ohio 1996) (movant’s and nonmovant’s burdens on summary judgment)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (definition of material fact and standard for summary judgment)
Turner v. Turner, 67 Ohio St.3d 337, 617 N.E.2d 1123 (Ohio 1993) (materiality of facts for summary judgment)
Menifee v. Ohio Welding Prods., Inc., 15 Ohio St.3d 75, 472 N.E.2d 707 (Ohio 1984) (elements of actionable negligence)
Wallace v. Ohio Dep’t of Commerce, 96 Ohio St.3d 266, 773 N.E.2d 1018 (Ohio 2002) (duty analysis and sources of duty)
Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 400 N.E.2d 384 (Ohio 1980) (appellant’s duty to provide record/transcript on appeal)