Perkins v. 122 E. 6th St., L.L.C.
2017 Ohio 5592
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On Nov. 10–11, 2012, William Martin, Jr. and Beverly Readnour were in a fatal car crash; police determined Martin caused the crash and his BAC ~0.172 about 30 minutes after the crash.
- Perkins, as personal representative of Readnour’s estate, sued Igby’s under Ohio’s dram-shop statute (R.C. 4399.18), alleging Igby’s employees knowingly served a noticeably intoxicated Martin who then caused the fatal crash.
- Igby’s moved for summary judgment, producing testimony and affidavit evidence that no employee recalled serving or observing Martin intoxicated and that no credit-card transactions matched Martin’s name.
- Plaintiff opposed with (1) a police collision report recounting a witness (Cronican) saying Martin appeared “stoned” waiting to enter Igby’s, and (2) an affidavit from Martin’s girlfriend (Eberhardt) saying Martin told her he had taken shots at Igby’s and was extremely intoxicated when he left.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Igby’s; the court of appeals affirmed, holding plaintiff produced no admissible evidence that an Igby’s employee served Martin or had actual knowledge he was noticeably intoxicated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff produced evidence that an Igby’s employee knowingly sold alcohol to a noticeably intoxicated person under R.C. 4399.18 | Perkins relied on the police report and Eberhardt’s affidavit to show Martin drank at Igby’s and was intoxicated there | Igby’s produced affidavits and employee testimony showing no employee served or observed Martin intoxicated and no credit-card charges in his name | No genuine issue: plaintiff produced no admissible evidence any Igby’s employee served Martin or had actual knowledge he was noticeably intoxicated; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether witness statements and girlfriend’s affidavit create imputable actual knowledge to the permit holder | Plaintiff argued witness and girlfriend statements show Martin was intoxicated at the bar, supporting inference employees knew he was intoxicated | Igby’s argued those statements do not prove an employee observed or served a noticeably intoxicated patron; actual knowledge cannot be imputed from third-party beliefs or post-service statements | Court: Third-party belief and patron’s later statements do not establish that an employee had actual knowledge at time of service; inadmissible or insufficient to create genuine issue |
| Whether admissibility issues over police report/preliminary statements prevented summary-judgment consideration | Plaintiff relied on the police report summaries to create factual disputes | Igby’s contested admissibility, arguing hearsay and lack of foundation | Court declined to resolve admissibility but held even if admissible, those materials would not create a genuine factual dispute |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (1996) (summary judgment reviewed de novo and standards for granting summary judgment)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (party moving for summary judgment on lack of evidence must affirmatively show nonmoving party lacks evidence)
- State ex rel. Howard v. Ferreri, 70 Ohio St.3d 587 (1994) (summary judgment standard reiterated)
- Lesnau v. Andate Ent., Inc., 93 Ohio St.3d 467 (2001) (dram-shop plaintiff must show permit holder or employee had actual knowledge that patron was noticeably intoxicated)
- Gressman v. McClain, 40 Ohio St.3d 359 (1988) (constructive knowledge insufficient for dram-shop liability)