Fuller v. Anchor Pointe Marina
100 N.E.3d 1281
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Scott and Doll Fuller contracted with Anchor Pointe Marina for winter storage of their boat; the printed storage agreement disclaimed responsibility for removing drain plugs and batteries and stated it was not a bailment.
- Fuller attempted to have his boat hauled out on the agreed date but marina staff (Donna, now deceased, and an unidentified mechanic) told him weather prevented removal and instructed him to leave the boat at the sling, and told him “We’ll take care of it” and later that they had winterized the boat.
- Water froze inside the boat over winter because the drain plugs were not removed; the boat was a total loss. Fullers bought a larger replacement boat that no longer fit their dock space and sought reassignment; marina refused and later allegedly offered dock spaces to new buyers on favorable terms.
- Fuller later tripped on an exposed metal conduit at a shoreline dock and broke his shoulder; he admitted he knew the conduit was there.
- Fullers sued for boat damage, loss of dock-space value, and personal injury. The trial court granted summary judgment for Anchor Pointe on all counts; on appeal the Sixth District affirmed summary judgment on personal-injury but reversed as to boat damage and loss-of-value, remanding those counts for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of exculpatory clause / liability for boat damage | Fuller: Marina assumed responsibility (created new bailment) by telling him “We’ll take care of it” and by a mechanic agreeing to remove plugs | Marina: Written storage agreement disclaims liability and is not a bailment; oral statements are inadmissible hearsay | Court: Oral statements by marina employees were party admissions (not hearsay); disputed facts on apparent authority and modification preclude summary judgment — reversed on boat-damage claim |
| Admissibility of statements by deceased employee and mechanic | Fuller: Statements are admissions by party-opponent under Evid.R. 801(D)(2)(d) | Marina: Statements are hearsay and employees lacked authority to bind company | Court: Statements were made by employees about a transaction and are admissions; trial court erred excluding them — reversal |
| Loss of value of dock space (market effect) | Fuller: Marina undermined market by giving away dock space subject to special assessment terms, reducing value of his unit; fiduciary-like duty to maintain market | Marina: Fuller's purchase of a larger boat caused his loss; not marina’s proximate cause | Court: Genuine factual dispute exists about marina offering dock spaces with different terms (possible devaluation); marina failed to show entitlement to summary judgment — reversed on loss-of-value claim |
| Personal injury (trip on conduit) | Fuller: Conduit placement was not open-and-obvious in the attendant-circumstances of boarding the boat; possibly code violation or willful/wanton conduct | Marina: Hazard was open and obvious; Fuller knew about the conduit — no duty owed | Court: Fuller had actual knowledge of the conduit; marina owed no duty — summary judgment for marina affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Collins v. Click Camera & Video, 86 Ohio App.3d 826 (appellate court will enforce exculpatory clauses absent public-policy or unconscionability concerns)
- Taylor Bldg. Corp. of Am. v. Benfield, 117 Ohio St.3d 352 (Ohio 2008) (unconscionability is a question of law; plaintiff bears burden to prove both procedural and substantive unconscionability)
- Lorain Natl. Bank v. Saratoga Apts., 61 Ohio App.3d 127 (summary-judgment standard review)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (summary-judgment de novo standard)
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64 (standards for summary judgment under Civ.R. 56)
- Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy, Inc., 18 Ohio St.3d 203 (business invitee duty and open-and-obvious doctrine)
- Sidle v. Humphrey, 13 Ohio St.2d 45 (open-and-obvious rule articulated)
- Master Consol. Corp. v. BancOhio Natl. Bank, 61 Ohio St.3d 570 (elements for apparent authority/principal bound by agent)
- Wicichowski v. Gladieux V. Enterprises, Inc., 54 Ohio App.3d 177 (no breach where invitee has knowledge of the hazard)