Mason v. Pawloski, 2011 Ohio 3061

Mason sued Pawloski for assault and related claims after an incident at O’Feenies Irish House on Nov. 3, 2007 in Parma Heights.
Mason and Pawloski were allegedly romantically involved with the same man, Clink; the dispute arose when Pawloski confronted Mason with a beer bottle.
Mason alleged she suffered a scalp laceration, concussion, blurred vision, dizziness, and headaches.
Officer Wittasek testified Mason had a head injury, took statements, and Pawloski admitted she might have hit Mason with a beer bottle.
The jury found Pawloski liable and awarded Mason damages; post-trial motions resulted in a judgment for Mason of $9,351.15.
On appeal, Pawloski challenged the admission of certain testimony as improper; the appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of officer’s ultimate-fact opinion	Mason argues admission aided jury’s fact-finding on causation.	Pawloski contends officer’s opinion was improper lay/expert testimony resolving an ultimate fact.	Harmless error; admission did not affect outcome.
Causation testimony about concussion without expert medical proof	Mason contends concussion testimony was admissible and corroborative of injury.	Pawloski argues medical causation requires expert testimony.	Harmless error; no different result given other evidence of injury.

State v. Jacks, 63 Ohio App.3d 200 (1989) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
State v. Finnerty, 45 Ohio St.3d 104 (1989) (expert vs lay opinion and ultimate issue formulation)
Shepherd v. Midland Mut. Life Ins. Co., 152 Ohio St. 6 (1949) (opinions may not resolve ultimate facts for jury)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard in evidentiary rulings)