Gibson v. Shephard
2017 Ohio 1157
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Gibson leased an apartment at Brookside Oval Apartments; management (Vanguard/Cleveco) provided tenant storage lockers in the laundry room and told tenants they could use empty lockers.
- Gibson used one locker, initially unlocked (items went missing), then locked it; by July 2015 she stored winter clothes, a playpen, decorations, comforters, etc.
- On July 2015 Gibson found her locker emptied, her padlock gone, and a sticker labeled "913" (unit number of a recently-vacated apartment) placed above her locker.
- Gibson notified management and the police; management (Mazzo) said maintenance had not authorized removal and did not further investigate; police did not pursue a remedy.
- Gibson sued in small claims for $1,959 alleging negligence/unlawful entry; a magistrate found circumstantial evidence landlord/agents likely removed the items (mistakenly) and awarded $1,959 (including $500 for invasion of privacy under local ordinance); trial court adopted the decision.
- Appellants appealed, raising five assignments (lease exculpation, insufficiency of proof, duty to investigate, speculative damages, statutory/ordinance violation pleadings). The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellants caused removal of Gibson's property | Circumstantial evidence (sticker 913, lock removed, lack of forced entry, complete clearing of locker, management's limited inquiry) shows defendants' agents likely removed items | There were other plausible explanations; plaintiff offered no direct proof—at best speculation | Court: Magistrate reasonably relied on circumstantial evidence; finding defendants' agents likely removed items affirmed (no abuse of discretion) |
| Whether lease clause bars liability | Gibson: Lease disavows liability only for losses "not due to Landlord's neglect or carelessness" so does not bar liability for landlord-caused loss | Defendants: Lease exculpates landlord from liability for tenant property loss | Court: Clause does not bar liability where loss is due to landlord's neglect/carelessness; clause inapplicable here |
| Whether plaintiff proved damages with required certainty | Gibson: Presented itemized list and valuation; owner testimony suffices in small claims to establish market value reasonably certain | Defendants: No receipts, no objective proof of age/condition, valuation speculative | Court: Owner's testimony and list suffice to prove damages with reasonable certainty in small claims; award of $1,959 (including $500 statutory/ordinance damages) upheld |
| Whether R.C. 5321.04(A)(7) and C.C.O. 375.06 were violated / pleaded | Gibson: Argued unlawful/unreasonable entry into her leased premises (storage locker is part of leased premises) | Defendants: No such claim pleaded; storage locker not a "dwelling unit" for R.C. 5321.04(A)(7) purposes | Court: Finding violation of R.C. 5321.04(A)(7) was error (locker not a dwelling unit) but harmless; C.C.O. 375.06 claim valid because lease and lease terms treat storage lockers as part of the leased premises—$500 invasion-of-privacy award sustainable |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard defined)
- State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (Ohio 1991) (circumstantial and direct evidence have equal probative value)
- State v. DeHass, 10 Ohio St.2d 230 (Ohio 1967) (credibility and weight of evidence for trier of fact)
- Eastman Kodak Co. v. Southern Photo Materials Co., 273 U.S. 359 (U.S. 1927) (damages need not be mathematically exact; reasonable estimate suffices)
- Smith v. Padgett, 32 Ohio St.3d 344 (Ohio 1987) (owner competent to testify to market value of personal property)