2021 Ohio 3151
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- On Sept. 18, 2015 Bailee Hollingshead was driving eastbound on two‑lane County Road 34 when, after cresting a hill at about 8:45 a.m., she was momentarily blinded by the rising sun, reached for her sun visor, and collided with a Utility Solutions truck and trailer.
- Utility Solutions employees had stopped a truck and trailer to unload equipment for work on the north side of the road; they say they placed cones, "utility work ahead" signs (approx. 300–800 feet), and activated hazard/strobe lights before unloading.
- Hollingshead sued Utility Solutions and its employees alleging negligent parking/placement of the vehicle and violations of parking statutes. Defendants pleaded comparative negligence.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment; they also moved to strike portions of Hollingshead’s affidavit and attached documents (an Ohio State Highway Patrol crash report and company training materials).
- The trial court struck portions of the plaintiff’s affidavit and the attorney’s affidavit/attachments and granted summary judgment for defendants. Hollingshead appealed; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to strike affidavit and exhibits | Affidavit statements and crash report/training materials were admissible and created disputes | Portions of affidavit contradicted plaintiff’s deposition; attorney lacked personal knowledge to authenticate exhibits | Court properly struck affidavit paragraphs that contradicted deposition and struck attorney’s affidavit/exhibits for lack of personal knowledge |
| Whether vehicle was "reasonably discernible" under R.C. 4511.21 (assured clear distance) | Sun glare and vehicle position over a hill made the stopped truck not reasonably discernible; fact issue exists | Truck was stationary, ahead in plaintiff’s lane, during daylight; signs/cones/lights were placed 300–800 ft — as a matter of law vehicle was reasonably discernible | Vehicle was reasonably discernible as a matter of law; Hollingshead violated the assured clear distance statute |
| Alleged violation of R.C. 4511.66 (illegal stopping/parking on traveled portion) | Defendants parked on traveled portion and failed to leave unobstructed view/clear lane; statutory violation supports negligence | Statute may not apply (uncertain whether roadway was "outside business or residence district"), and defendants stated it was not practicable to unload off the traveled way | Plaintiff failed to show R.C. 4511.66 applied or that a statutory violation created a triable negligence issue |
| Negligence / proximate cause / comparative negligence | Even if plaintiff bore some fault, defendants’ parking placement, sign/cone placement, and choice to park where sun glare affected motorists created a factual dispute on negligence and proximate cause | Given daytime conditions, signage, cones, and lights, defendants exercised reasonable care; plaintiff’s lack of recollection and inability to stop control the result | Summary judgment appropriate; plaintiff failed to produce evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact on negligence or proximate cause (affirmed). Judge Hoffman dissented in part, arguing comparative negligence should go to a jury |
Key Cases Cited
- Byrd v. Smith, 110 Ohio St.3d 24, 850 N.E.2d 47 (Ohio 2006) (courts must assess whether an affidavit contradicts or supplements deposition testimony)
- Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc., 30 Ohio St.3d 35, 506 N.E.2d 212 (Ohio 1987) (standard for appellate review of summary judgment)
- Pond v. Leslein, 72 Ohio St.3d 50, 647 N.E.2d 477 (Ohio 1995) (elements for assured clear distance violation and rule that a stopped vehicle in a driver’s path during daylight is reasonably discernible)
- Blair v. Goff‑Kirby Co., 49 Ohio St.2d 5, 358 N.E.2d 634 (Ohio 1976) (formulation of assured clear distance principles)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 662 N.E.2d 264 (Ohio 1996) (moving party’s and nonmoving party’s burdens on summary judgment)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)