2020 Ohio 2985
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- On Feb. 5, 2013, in dense/patchy fog on US-24, Ashley Messman pulled into the highway and was broadsided by a Secord Farms tanker (driven by Janssens), which stopped disabled in an eastbound lane.
- Multiple vehicles subsequently collided at the scene; Billy Pursley (semi) hit the tanker earlier; later Russell Williams (pickup towing equipment) struck Gary Schleinkofer’s vehicle from behind and then the stopped tanker.
- Police concluded Williams was going too fast, failed to maintain an assured clear distance ahead (ACDA), and was at fault for his collision(s).
- Williams sued/cross-claimed and sought underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits through his employer’s insurer, Progressive; Progressive and the other defendants moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Progressive, Janssens, and Secord Farms; it found Williams violated R.C. 4511.21(A) (ACDA) and thus was negligent per se, and that he was not entitled to UIM benefits. Williams appealed; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Williams) | Defendant's Argument (Janssens/Secord/Progressive) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Williams violated R.C. 4511.21(A) (ACDA) by striking the stopped tanker | Fog and a waving pedestrian prevented the tanker from being reasonably discernible; thus a factual question exists | Williams admitted he saw the fog, saw a pedestrian warn, emerged from fog and saw the tanker, braked and took evasive action but could not stop — so tanker was reasonably discernible and ACDA was not maintained | Affirmed: Williams failed to maintain ACDA as a matter of law (negligence per se); no genuine issue of material fact |
| Whether comparative fault (apportionment) should go to a jury despite ACDA violation | Even if ACDA violated, the earlier collisions (Messman–Janssens) were proximate causes and comparative fault should be decided by a jury | Williams’s failure to maintain ACDA was a new, independent intervening cause that broke the causal chain from earlier collisions | Affirmed: Williams’s negligence was an intervening, independent cause; no jury question on comparative fault between Williams and earlier actors |
| Whether Progressive owes UIM benefits | Williams contends he is entitled to UIM because others were at fault | Policy requires insured be "legally entitled to recover" from an underinsured motorist; Williams cannot show legal entitlement because he was negligent per se and his negligence was the proximate cause; Schleinkofer was dismissed | Affirmed: Progressive not liable under UIM endorsement because Williams failed to satisfy prerequisite (no legal right to recover from another party) |
Key Cases Cited
- Pond v. Leslein, 72 Ohio St.3d 50 (1995) (establishes four‑prong ACDA test: object ahead, stationary or moving same direction, did not suddenly appear, reasonably discernible)
- Smiddy v. Wedding Party, Inc., 30 Ohio St.3d 35 (1987) (stopped vehicle in driver’s path in daylight is reasonably discernible in absence of extraordinary weather)
- McFadden v. Elmer C. Breuer Transp. Co., 156 Ohio St. 430 (1952) (definition/analysis of "discernible" vs. "visible")
- Woods v. Brown’s Bakery, 171 Ohio St. 383 (1960) (fog does not automatically excuse failure to maintain ACDA; driver must adjust speed to visible distance)
- Sabo v. Helsel, 4 Ohio St.3d 70 (1983) (ACDA described; driver prohibited from speed greater than will permit stopping within distance at which discernible obstruction can be seen)
- Shinaver v. Szymanski, 14 Ohio St.3d 51 (1984) (when both lead and following drivers violate ACDA, comparative causation is for jury)
- Ziegler v. Wendel Poultry Serv., Inc., 67 Ohio St.3d 10 (1993) (sudden appearance of vehicle in heavy fog can create jury question whether object suddenly entered assured clear distance)