Kariv c. Consolo
2014 Ohio 3910
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Kariv (plaintiff) sued Consolo (defendant) after a July 19, 2010 car accident; Consolo admitted liability but disputed injury extent.
- Kariv had pre-existing/degenerative injuries; he delayed treatment for 11 days and was active during a Florida vacation after the accident.
- Treating physician Dr. Wyrwas attributed all claimed injuries to the accident based on Kariv's subjective complaints.
- The jury found in favor of Consolo on damages; Kariv challenged on two grounds: denial of directed verdict and proximate causation instruction.
- Appellate court reviews de novo the denial of a directed verdict and whether a jury instruction on causation was warranted given competing evidence.
- Court held there was sufficient conflict in the evidence to submit causation to the jury; trial court’s denial of directed verdict and jury instruction were proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proximate causation whether trial court should have directed verdict | Kariv contends uncontradicted expert ties causation to accident. | Consolo argues credibility and evidentiary disputes require jury determination. | No directed verdict; jury resolved causation issues. |
| Proximate causation jury instruction whether proper to instruct on causation | Kariv argues causation was clear and should have directed verdict. | Consolo maintains credibility issues and delay in treatment create need for jury determination. | Jury instruction on proximate causation proper; issue for jury. |
Key Cases Cited
- Groob v. KeyBank, 108 Ohio St.3d 348 (Ohio 2006) (directed-verdict standard; de novo review applicable)
- Renfro v. Black, 52 Ohio St.3d 27 (Ohio 1990) (trial court must submit essential issues when evidence supports)
- Ace Steel Baling v. Porterfield, 19 Ohio St.2d 137 (Ohio 1969) (trial court must weigh evidence; credibility in evaluating expert testimony)