Koepke v. Metro. Property & Cas. Ins. Co.
2017 Ohio 4084
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- At ~2:00 a.m. on Sept. 22, 2012, Koepke attempted to cross Godown Road about 300–400 feet north of Bethel Road where no crosswalk existed.
- Koepke looked and saw no traffic, began crossing, and stopped in a painted wedge/median (bounded by double-yellow lines) because a vehicle turning from Bethel into Godown appeared to be driving too fast.
- The turning vehicle swerved, corrected, then swerved toward Koepke; it struck her while she was standing in the median and fled the scene. The driver is unknown.
- Koepke sued her insurer, Metropolitan, to recover under uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage for the hit-and-run driver’s conduct.
- Metropolitan moved for summary judgment arguing Koepke could not prove the unknown driver was negligent; the trial court granted summary judgment for Metropolitan.
- The Tenth District reversed and remanded, holding questions of fact existed about whether the driver violated R.C. 4511.33(A)(1) (leaving lane / crossing double-yellow lines), which would eliminate the driver’s statutory “preferential status” and permit negligence liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the hit‑and‑run driver owed Koepke a duty of care | Koepke: driver violated R.C. 4511.33(A)(1) by crossing double‑yellow lines/unsafe lane change; thus lost statutory preferential status and owed ordinary care | Metropolitan: no evidence driver realized Koepke was in roadway; driver retained preferential status under R.C. 4511.48(A) so owed no common‑law duty | Reversed: disputed facts exist whether driver proceeded unlawfully (possible lane violation/erratic driving); if unlawful, driver loses preferential status and may be negligent |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate | Koepke: factual dispute (erratic driving, contact point, location in median) defeats summary judgment | Metropolitan: absence of proof driver was negligent or aware of Koepke supports judgment as matter of law | Court: summary judgment improper because reasonable minds could differ on whether driver violated lane‑keeping statute and thus owed duty |
Key Cases Cited
- Deming v. Osinski, 24 Ohio St.2d 179 (Ohio 1970) (explains statutory "right of way" preferential status and when a driver loses it and common‑law duties arise)
- Morris v. Bloomgren, 127 Ohio St. 147 (Ohio 1933) (early articulation of preferential status and forfeiture when proceeding unlawfully)
- State v. Mays, 119 Ohio St.3d 406 (Ohio 2008) (R.C. 4511.33(A)(1) requires driving within a single lane as nearly as practicable)
- Cromer v. Children’s Hosp. Med. Ctr., 142 Ohio St.3d 257 (Ohio 2015) (elements of negligence)
- Hudson v. Petrosurance, Inc., 127 Ohio St.3d 54 (Ohio 2010) (summary judgment standard)