Meyer v. Rapacz
2011 Ohio 2537
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Lucile Meyer, administratrix of Roland Meyer’s estate, sued Mateusz Rapacz for negligence after Roland, age 77 with Alzheimer’s, was struck and later died from injuries on December 8, 2007.
- Kljrna was initially named for negligent entrustment but dismissed before trial.
- Lucile also claimed underinsured/uninsured benefits under Roland’s Nationwide policy.
- Trial proceeded to a jury on the negligence and negligent entrustment claims; the latter claim was dismissed prior to trial.
- The trial court granted a directed verdict for Rapacz and Nationwide; Meyer’s motions for new trial and JNOV were denied; the court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court err by granting directed verdict on negligence? | Meyer argues Rapacz breached duty by failing to observe Roland and maintain safe distance. | Rapacz contends no duty breach was proven; he proceeded lawfully in his lane. | No error; directed verdict affirmed. |
| Was denial of JNOV/new trial correct given the evidence? | Meyer contends evidence supports breach of duty and verdict should be reconsidered. | Defendants maintain evidence insufficient to show breach or negligence. | Yes, denial affirmed; verdict supported by evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Texler v. D.O. Summers Cleaners & Shirt Laundry Co., 81 Ohio St.3d 677 (Ohio 1998) (elements of negligence and duty; standard of care)
- Junge v. Bros., 16 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 1985) (elements of R.C. 4511.21(A) and required proof for jury submission)
- Biery v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 156 Ohio St. 75 (Ohio 1951) (negligence not presumed; burden of proof on plaintiff)
- Chem. Bank of N.Y. v. Neman, 52 Ohio St.3d 204 (Ohio 1990) (de novo review standard for directed verdict/JNOV)
- Grau v. Kleinschmidt, 31 Ohio St.3d 84 (Ohio 1987) (de novo review; credibility not weighed on directed verdict)