2018 Ohio 259
Oh. Ct. App. 6th Dist. Lucas2018Background
- Marc and Paula Meyer sued United Airlines after Marc was struck by luggage that fell from an overhead bin during the flight from Honolulu to Chicago on October 26, 2013; Marc sustained a full-thickness rotator cuff tear requiring surgery.
- Plaintiffs alleged United breached a duty under federal aviation regulations (14 C.F.R. §§ 121.589, 121.285) to verify and secure carry-on baggage before takeoff, proximately causing the injury; Paula alleged loss of consortium.
- Depositons were taken of Marc and Paula Meyer, passenger witness Reatta Barnfield, and lead flight attendant David Carney. Key factual dispute concerned whether a flight attendant visually verified the bin was secure before an unidentified passenger later reopened it and loaded the bag.
- United moved for summary judgment arguing plaintiffs produced no evidence that United failed to verify or secure the bin; United relied on Carney’s testimony that verification may be visual and was performed.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for United on June 14, 2017; plaintiffs appealed. The appellate court conducted de novo review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal regs (14 C.F.R. §§ 121.589, 121.285) impose a duty to verify and secure carry-on baggage | Meyer: Regulations establish the standard of care and United violated them by failing to verify/secure the bin | United: No evidence United violated regs; verification was done (visually) | Court: Regs do impose duty; addressed in analysis of breach but plaintiffs failed to create a factual dispute about breach |
| Whether a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether United verified the bin was secure before takeoff | Meyer: Depositions show bin appeared ajar and no attendant was seen closing or rechecking it; if checked, Meyer would have seen it | United: Testimony (Carney, Barnfield) shows bins were checked and visually verified before passenger reopened/loaded bag; last person to touch bin was an unidentified passenger | Court: No genuine issue—plaintiffs offered no evidence to contradict Carney that visual verification occurred; visual check suffices under the regulation |
| Whether the trial court improperly credited United’s version of events on summary judgment | Meyer: Trial court improperly accepted United’s restatement and drew inferences for defendant | United: Evidence supports its sequence and no material factual conflict exists | Court: No error—differences in timing were immaterial; plaintiffs failed to meet Civ.R. 56 burden |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1996) (establishes de novo appellate review and summary judgment standard)
- Riley v. Montgomery, 11 Ohio St.3d 75 (Ohio 1984) (party opposing summary judgment cannot rest on allegations; must present specific facts)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (defines materiality and standard for genuine issue of material fact on summary judgment)