Huff v. FirstEnergy Corp.
130 Ohio St. 3d 196
Ohio2011Background
- Huff injured June 2004 by a falling limb of a sugar maple near Kings Grave Road in Hartford Township; tree located on Braho property, about 30 feet from road center and 20 feet from Ohio Edison power lines.
- Tree was outside Ohio Edison’s easement; it did not threaten the lines.
- Ohio Edison hired Asplundh Tree Expert Company to inspect and maintain vegetation along the lines but deferred to Asplundh’s decisions; Asplundh had last been in the area in May 2001.
- Plaintiffs sued Ohio Edison and Asplundh (and others) for failure to inspect, maintain, remove the tree, or warn public of danger.
- Trial court granted summary judgment, finding no notice or duty by either party and that Huff was not an intended third-party beneficiary of the contract.
- Court of appeals reversed, concluding there was a genuine issue whether Huff was an intended third-party beneficiary under the contract; majority held the contract did not create such a duty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Huff is an intended third-party beneficiary of the Ohio Edison–Asplundh contract | Huff argues the contract’s safeguard clause creates a duty to protect the public | Edison/Asplundh argue no intent to benefit Huff; no contract language shows intended beneficiary | Not an intended beneficiary; contract language and purpose do not show intent to benefit Huff |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. Sonitrol of Southwestern Ohio, Inc., 36 Ohio St.3d 36 (1988) (adopts Restatement §302 test for intended beneficiaries)
- Norfolk & West. Co. v. United States, 641 F.2d 1201 (C.A.6. 1980) (intent-to-benefit test for third-party beneficiaries)
- Anderson v. Olmsted Util. Equip., Inc., 60 Ohio St.3d 124 (1991) (extrinsic evidence may establish third-party rights; city example)
- Shifrin v. Forest City Ents., Inc., 64 Ohio St.3d 635 (1992) (language controls, extrinsic evidence used to interpret intent")