Kiser v. United Dairy Farmers
219 N.E.3d 465
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- On Feb. 25, 2019, Courtney Kiser slipped exiting her car in a United Dairy Farmers (UDF) Grove City parking space and injured her arm/shoulder. She later sought medical treatment.
- Kiser testified she saw a small circular patch of ice behind her open car door and that an employee, Heidi Ratkowski, said: “oh, you slipped on ice, I meant to go put salt on it and I forgot.”
- Surveillance footage shows another customer dumped two beverages in the same parking space minutes before Kiser arrived; no UDF employee appears to have walked past the space in that brief interval.
- UDF moved for summary judgment, arguing it lacked actual or constructive notice because the spill occurred minutes earlier and employees had no opportunity to discover it.
- The trial court granted summary judgment, discounting Kiser’s deposition as “self‑serving” and relying on precedent treating uncorroborated testimony as insufficient to defeat a supported motion.
- The Tenth District Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding the trial court erred by disregarding admissible deposition testimony and clarifying that admissible “self‑serving” evidence must be considered at summary judgment; the court found the remaining negligence issues moot and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly disregarded Kiser’s deposition testimony as uncorroborated “self‑serving” evidence | Kiser argued her deposition (relaying Ratkowski’s admission) is admissible under Civ.R. 56 and creates a genuine issue of material fact | UDF argued Tenth District precedent forbids a nonmovant from defeating summary judgment with unsupported self‑serving testimony | Court held the trial court erred: admissible deposition testimony must be considered; to the extent prior Tenth Dist. precedents barred such evidence, they are overruled |
| Whether UDF had actual notice of the hazard | Kiser argued Ratkowski’s alleged admission, if credited, shows actual notice | UDF argued no employee knew of the hazard before Kiser’s fall and video shows no employee passed the space | Not decided on the merits — appellate court sustained Kiser’s assignment about the ignored testimony and remanded so the trial court may reassess actual notice |
| Whether UDF had constructive notice (hazard existed long enough that UDF should have discovered it) | Kiser contended the hazard may have been preexisting (ice) and not caused minutes before | UDF argued the spill occurred only minutes prior, so no constructive notice | Not decided on the merits — remanded for further proceedings after proper consideration of deposition evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Hood v. Diamond Prods., 74 Ohio St.3d 298 (1996) (nonmoving party’s personal testimony may satisfy Civ.R.56 if within personal knowledge and otherwise admissible)
- State ex rel. Grady v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 78 Ohio St.3d 181 (1997) (explains Civ.R.56 requirements and standards for summary judgment)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (movant must point to evidentiary materials demonstrating the nonmoving party lacks proof)
- Turner v. Turner, 67 Ohio St.3d 337 (1993) (credibility disputes ordinarily preclude summary judgment)
- Davis v. Loopco Indus., Inc., 66 Ohio St.3d 64 (1993) (summary judgment should be awarded cautiously; doubts resolved for nonmoving party)