Morrison v. Hunt
2017 Ohio 4332
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Morrison, an inmate, sued fellow inmate James Hunt under assault/battery for an August 5, 2013 incident at Richland Correctional Institution, alleging Hunt struck him in the head with a lock.
- Complaint filed February 11, 2016; Morrison moved for default judgment twice (April and September 2016) and for summary judgment (December 2016).
- The trial court denied both default motions for lack of demonstrable merit, finding Hunt had appeared in the case (motion for video teleconference and participation in scheduling conference).
- The trial court scheduled a non-oral hearing on summary judgment, then denied summary judgment and dismissed the complaint on January 26, 2017, as barred by the one-year statute of limitations for assault/battery.
- The court concluded Morrison knew Hunt's identity (prison rule infraction board found Hunt guilty), so the claim accrued no later than August 5, 2013, and should have been filed by August 5, 2014.
- Morrison appealed; the appellate court affirmed the trial court's rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion in denying motions for default judgment | Morrison argued default judgment was appropriate because Hunt failed to defend | Hunt appeared (via motion for videoconference and participation in scheduling), so default was not proper | Court: no abuse of discretion; trial court reasonably found Hunt had appeared and motions lacked merit |
| Whether trial court erred by denying summary judgment and sua sponte dismissing under statute of limitations | Morrison sought summary judgment on liability for assault; argued dismissal improper | Trial court invoked one-year limitations period for assault/battery, finding identity known and claim time-barred | Court: summary judgment denied as filed; dismissal on statute of limitations affirmed because claim accrued Aug 5, 2013 and was untimely |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Eastland Shopping Mall Ass'n, 11 Ohio App.3d 158 (explaining purpose of accelerated calendar)
- Queen v. Hanna, 985 N.E.2d 929 (standard for reviewing default-judgment decisions)
- Dye v. Smith, 937 N.E.2d 628 (review of default-judgment practice under Civ.R. 55)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (definition of "abuse of discretion")