Hazell v. Kroger Co.
2017 Ohio 1459
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Hazell slipped on a clear substance and fell while exiting a Kroger store; she sued Kroger alleging breach of duty to invitees and claimed severe injuries.
- Anthem asserted a subrogation cross-claim; Kroger filed a third-party complaint against Home City Ice alleging negligence/indemnity/contribution.
- Kroger served discovery and deposed Hazell; Kroger filed the deposition transcript and moved for summary judgment; Home City also moved for summary judgment.
- Hazell did not file a timely memorandum contra and raised no objection in the trial court to the evidence or the form of the deposition transcript.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Kroger and Home City and dismissed Hazell’s claims and Anthem’s subrogation claim; Hazell appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Home City failed to present evidence supporting summary judgment | Home City presented no proper evidence to support its motion | Court may consider the record and evidence before it; Home City entitled to judgment if no breach shown | Overruled — Court considered the record and found no genuine issue that Home City breached any duty |
| Whether Hazell’s deposition transcript was unauthenticated and inadmissible under Civ.R. 30(E) | Hazell argued the deposition certificate/form did not comply with authentication requirements, so it was inadmissible for summary judgment | Kroger relied on the filed deposition; Hazell failed to object below so any defects were waived | Overruled — defects unobjected to were waived; the transcript was considered for summary judgment |
| Whether defendants met initial burden to show absence of genuine issue of material fact | Hazell contended defendants did not meet initial burden because evidence was deficient | Defendants pointed to Hazell’s deposition testimony showing she had no knowledge of how long substance was on floor or how it got there | Held — Defendants met initial burden; viewing evidence favorably to Hazell, reasonable minds could only conclude no breach; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Tokles & Son, Inc. v. Midwestern Indemn. Co., 65 Ohio St.3d 621 (standard for summary judgment)
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64 (summary judgment standard; viewing evidence most strongly for nonmoving party)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (moving party’s initial burden and nonmoving party’s response)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (de novo review standard for summary judgment)
- Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy, Inc., 18 Ohio St.3d 203 (store liability principles; store not insurer)
- State ex rel. Gilmour Realty, Inc. v. Mayfield Hts., 122 Ohio St.3d 260 (court may consider noncomplying evidence if no objection)