Large v. Lilley
2018 Ohio 1017
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Large sued neighboring property owner Lilley alleging landscaping and downspout changes directed stormwater onto his lot, damaging his basement wall and driveway. Original suit filed 2014 and refiled 2015.
- Evidence showed Large first observed basement cracking as early as 2003 and worsening by 2007; driveway cracks documented as early as 1999.
- Large presented a forensic engineer who inspected the site in 2016 and opined Lilley’s changes caused soil saturation and pressure on Large’s basement wall; no expert causation opinion was offered for the driveway.
- Lilley moved for a directed verdict at close of Large’s case, arguing the four‑year statute of limitations for injury to real property barred the basement claim and that Large failed to prove causation for the driveway damage.
- The trial court granted Lilley’s motion, finding the basement damage was discoverable by 2007 (outside the four‑year period) and that Large failed to present causation evidence for the driveway. Large appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the four‑year statute of limitations (R.C. 2305.09) bars the basement claim | Large argued he did not know Lilley caused the damage until within four years of filing; alternatively (on appeal) he claimed a continuing trespass tolled the statute | Lilley argued the basement damage was discoverable by 2007, so claims filed in 2014/2015 are time‑barred | Court held Large waived the continuing‑trespass argument by not raising it below and affirmed that the basement claim was barred as filed outside the limitations period |
| Whether the driveway damages were supported by causation evidence | Large offered no expert causation linking Lilley to the driveway cracks at trial | Lilley argued there was no evidence linking her actions to the driveway damage; earlier photos showed cracks predating alleged alterations | Court held Large failed to meet his burden on causation for the driveway and affirmed directed verdict for Lilley |
Key Cases Cited
- Groob v. KeyBank, 843 N.E.2d 1170 (Ohio 2006) (standard of review for directed verdict under Civ.R. 50)
- Hargrove v. Tanner, 586 N.E.2d 141 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990) (directed verdict appropriate when plaintiff fails to present evidence from which reasonable minds could find for plaintiff)
- Stores Realty Co. v. Cleveland, 322 N.E.2d 629 (Ohio 1975) (litigants may not raise new issues for the first time on appeal)
- State ex rel. Zollner v. Indus. Comm., 611 N.E.2d 830 (Ohio 1993) (failure to raise issue at trial operates as waiver on appeal)
Outcome: Judgment of the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas affirmed.