Gentile v. Turkoly, 2017 Ohio 2959

Appellant Richard Gentile filed a joint application for en banc consideration and reconsideration after this court affirmed the trial court’s judgment; the court here addresses only the reconsideration application.
Primary legal dispute: whether a trial court may sua sponte enter a directed verdict under Civ.R. 50 and related procedural-rule framing (bench trial use of Civ.R. 41(B) vs. Civ.R. 50).
Secondary dispute: whether the court failed to distinguish tortious interference with a business relationship from tortious interference with a contractual relationship (citing Ginn v. Stonecreek Dental Care) and whether Gentile presented sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment.
The court reviewed prior appellate decisions across districts holding a trial court may sua sponte direct a verdict, and acknowledged City of Steubenville was arguably misframed but explained that application of the Civ.R. 50 standard (more rigorous) cures any error relative to Civ.R. 41(B).
On the tortious-interference claim, the court concluded Gentile offered no evidence that Turkoly’s online review prevented third parties from dealing with him and also failed to show the required actual malice for that tort.
The court denied the application for reconsideration, finding no obvious error or matter not fully considered.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a trial court may sua sponte direct a verdict under Civ.R. 50	Gentile argued Civ.R. 50(A)(4) language does not permit sua sponte directed verdicts and relied on City of Steubenville being inapplicable	Turkoly (and supporting precedent) argued appellate districts permit sua sponte directed verdicts and Civ.R.50 application is acceptable	Court held trial courts can sua sponte direct a verdict; even if City of Steubenville was misframed, applying Civ.R.50 is more rigorous and satisfies Civ.R.41(B) standards
Whether the court failed to properly distinguish tortious interference claims and whether Gentile met the elements to survive summary judgment	Gentile argued the court overlooked Ginn and that he established interference with a prospective business relationship	Turkoly argued Gentile produced no evidence third parties were deterred and failed to show actual malice	Court held the distinction was considered; Gentile produced no evidence of interference or actual malice, so summary judgment was proper

Jarupan v. Hanna, 173 Ohio App.3d 284 (10th Dist. 2007) (Civ.R.50 is inapplicable to nonjury trials and Civ.R.41(B) governs involuntary dismissal in bench trials)