2011 Ohio 3214
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- August 12, 2008, Katherine Rhinebolt and Ryan Rhinebolt were passengers in a southbound VW on State Route 36 driven by Rachel Shadel, which collided with Ray Richardson.
- Shadel drifted left of center, then corrected to the right; witnesses described the vehicle struggle and loss of control prior to impact.
- Richardson, behind the VW, attempted evasive action; witnesses described limited time to react and the VW crossing into Richardson's path.
- Appellant, administrator of the estates, sued Shadel, Shadel’s owners, Grange Mutual, and later Knox County Career Center; various consolidation and joinder motions occurred.
- The trial court granted summary judgment finding Richardson not negligent and within the course and scope of employment; appellant challenged the rulings on appeal.
- The Delaware County Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment, holding Richardson was not negligent and that the other defendants were not liable; costs to appellant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty and right-of-way with perception of peril | Leahy argues Richardson owed a duty to perceive peril and act with ordinary care notwithstanding right-of-way. | Richardson/Knox Center contend Richardson had right-of-way and no duty to look for danger until peril appeared. | No negligence; Richardson had right-of-way and exercised due care. |
| Eight-second perception/reaction and cell-phone evidence | Leahy asserts jury question exists given 8 seconds to perceive/react and ongoing cell-phone use. | Richardson/Center argue standard timing shows no failure of due care; cell phone timing is immaterial. | Summary judgment proper; Richardson did not breach duty. |
| Admissibility of lay opinion on ultimate issue | Leahy argues lay witnesses cannot opine on ultimate issue due to lack of expertise. | Defendants contend lay opinion is admissible under Evid.R. 701 and 704. | Lay opinions admissible; not reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mussivand v. David, 45 Ohio St.3d 314 (Ohio 1989) (foreseeability and duty in negligence)
- Deming v. Osinki, 24 Ohio St.2d 179 (Ohio 1970) (duty of driver with right of way; no duty to look for danger)
- Cleveland Railroad Co. v. Masterson, 126 Ohio St. 42 (Ohio 1932) (last clear chance doctrine merged into comparative negligence)