Rapp v. Sullivan
2013 Ohio 5378
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Brianna Rapp sued William Sullivan after their vehicles collided at an intersection during an active shooting; Rapp alleged Sullivan's negligence caused the crash.
- Rapp approached a stop sign on East Boston Avenue, stopped ~10–15 seconds, looked right (Sullivan’s direction) and left, saw no cars, then heard gunshots.
- A bullet shattered windows and grazed Rapp; she ducked and accelerated faster than normal into the intersection while shots continued.
- Sullivan, traveling on the through street without a stop sign, struck Rapp’s passenger side before her vehicle cleared the intersection; Rapp never saw Sullivan prior to impact and could not estimate his speed.
- Sullivan moved for summary judgment relying on Rapp’s deposition; Rapp’s unauthenticated police file attachments were struck. The trial court (via magistrate) granted summary judgment for Sullivan; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether genuine issue exists on defendant's negligence and liability | Rapp: her deposition shows she looked and saw no car before shots, so Sullivan may have been speeding or otherwise negligent; causation is disputed | Sullivan: deposition shows Rapp accelerated into his lane after being shot; no evidence Sullivan violated law or caused the collision | No genuine issue; summary judgment for Sullivan affirmed |
| Whether defendant was proceeding "in a lawful manner" (right-of-way) | Rapp: having been in the middle of his lane suggests Sullivan’s unlawful driving | Sullivan: no evidence he violated traffic law or speed limit; he had statutory right-of-way | Sullivan had right-of-way; no evidence he was acting unlawfully |
| Whether contributory/comparative negligence precludes summary judgment | Rapp: argument raises comparative negligence issues for jury | Sullivan: facts show Rapp’s own emergency reaction caused collision; mere suggestion of comparative fault insufficient | Comparative negligence not a bar where no evidence defendant breached duty; summary judgment appropriate |
| Whether unauthenticated documents could create a fact issue | Rapp: attached police file to response | Sullivan: moved to strike unauthenticated documents | Court refused to consider unauthenticated attachments; they did not create a factual dispute |
Key Cases Cited
- Byrd v. Smith, 110 Ohio St.3d 24 (summary judgment standard and burden shifting)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (movant's burden and nonmovant response requirements in Civ.R. 56)
- Menifee v. Ohio Welding Products, Inc., 15 Ohio St.3d 75 (elements of negligence: duty, breach, proximate cause)
- Deming v. Osinski, 24 Ohio St.2d 179 (driver with right-of-way need not anticipate intrusion by stop-controlled driver)
- Morris v. Bloomgren, 127 Ohio St. 147 (statutory right-of-way gives preferential status)
- Timmons v. Russomano, 14 Ohio St.2d 124 (through-street driver proceeding lawfully has absolute right-of-way over stop-street driver)
- Corrigan v. Seminatore, 66 Ohio St.2d 459 (requirements for affidavits and attachments in summary judgment practice)