2018 Ohio 2017
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Crawl for Cancer, Inc. (CFC) organized a large, for‑profit Columbus pub crawl on May 24, 2014 that sold team spots, assigned bars to teams, and provided tickets for pitchers; approximately 5,500 persons attended and CFC donated about 26% of revenues to cancer causes.
- The event included a multi‑hour bar crawl followed by an after‑hours party; CFC provided kegs and participants consumed substantial alcohol.
- Angela Yeager, a participant, drove while intoxicated after the event, crossed the center line, and collided with Erin Lytal’s car, causing severe, lasting injuries to Lytal.
- Lytal and her mother (for loss of consortium) sued CFC and two corporate officers for negligent and malicious conduct; after answers were filed, defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings under Civ.R. 12(C).
- The trial court granted the 12(C) motion, finding as a matter of law that defendants owed no duty to Lytal; plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CFC and its officers owed a legal duty to third parties injured by an intoxicated participant | Lytal: CFC exercised sufficient control over participants (organized event, assigned bars, issued beer tickets) to create a duty to prevent harm | Defendants: No special relationship or actual knowledge of intoxication; mere provision of alcohol does not create a duty to third parties | No duty as a matter of law; 12(C) dismissal affirmed |
| Whether Fletcher Trucking extends liability to event organizers who "control" drinkers | Lytal: Fletcher supports recognizing duty where organizer exerts control over participants | Defendants: Fletcher is fact‑specific (employer/employee with actual knowledge and affirmative control) and does not apply here | Court: Fletcher confined to its facts; not applicable to mass public event organizer |
Key Cases Cited
- Rayess v. Educational Comm. for Foreign Med. Graduates, 134 Ohio St.3d 509 (2012) (standard of review for Civ.R. 12(C) and pleadings assumed true)
- Wallace v. Ohio Dep’t of Commerce, 96 Ohio St.3d 266 (2002) (duty is question of law; foreseeability and relationship define duty)
- Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., 99 Ohio St.3d 79 (2003) (elements of negligence: duty, breach, proximate cause)
- Menifee v. Ohio Welding Prods., 15 Ohio St.3d 75 (1984) (duty and negligence elements)
- Settlemyer v. Wilmington Veterans Post No. 49, Am. Legion, Inc., 11 Ohio St.3d 123 (1984) (common law generally bars third‑party claims against alcohol providers)
- Mitseff v. Wheeler, 38 Ohio St.3d 112 (1988) (social host duty regarding furnishing alcohol to minors)
- Mussivand v. David, 45 Ohio St.3d 314 (1989) (duty analysis involves policy considerations)
- Perrysburg Twp. v. Rossford, 103 Ohio St.3d 79 (2004) (standards for appellate review of legal questions)