2013 Ohio 2544
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Revlock, a police officer, stopped on icy I-77 after speaking with Lin, whose car had slid into the median; Revlock sat in his cruiser writing a report with lights flashing.
- While Revlock was in his cruiser, a third motorist (Fredrickson) slid on the icy roadway and rear-ended Revlock’s vehicle; Revlock settled with Fredrickson and sued Lin for negligence.
- Revlock alleged Lin negligently lost control of his car and that Lin’s negligence proximately caused the subsequent collision and his injuries; Lin denied negligence and moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Lin, concluding Lin owed no duty to Revlock and alternatively noting the fireman’s rule (an exception to the rescue doctrine) barred recovery.
- Revlock appealed, arguing the trial court improperly raised the fireman’s rule sua sponte, Lin failed to plead it, the rule does not apply to vehicle accidents, and proximate cause remained a factual issue for the jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court improperly decided the case sua sponte by applying the fireman’s rule | Revlock: court erred by raising and relying on fireman’s rule not argued by Lin | Lin: summary judgment argued lack of duty; court’s alternative discussion did not prejudice Revlock | Court: No error; Revlock raised rescue doctrine in his opposition so he had notice and opportunity to respond |
| Whether Lin forfeited the fireman’s rule defense by not pleading it as an affirmative defense | Revlock: failure to plead prevented reliance on the rule | Lin: primary motion was no duty; discussion of rule was alternative basis and Revlock wasn’t prejudiced | Court: No prejudice; rule used only as alternate support; assignment overruled |
| Whether the fireman’s rule applies such that Revlock’s rescue-based claim fails | Revlock: rescue doctrine applies to hold Lin liable | Lin: fireman’s rule limits liability of those whose negligence simply prompts official rescue | Court: Even if rescue doctrine applied, fireman’s rule exception bars recovery here; but principal ground was no duty owed |
| Whether proximate cause is a genuine factual issue preventing summary judgment | Revlock: it was foreseeable another vehicle could slide and strike him; jury should decide causation | Lin: it was not foreseeable that a third party would strike Revlock while he completed paperwork; no duty/proximate cause | Court: No evidence Lin should have foreseen Fredrickson’s impact; proximate cause lacking as matter of law; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (standards for de novo review of summary judgment)
- Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, 82 Ohio St.3d 367 (summary judgment test under Civ.R. 56)
- Horton v. Harwick Chem. Corp., 73 Ohio St.3d 679 (third-prong of summary judgment standard)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (moving party’s burden in summary judgment)
- Mitseff v. Wheeler, 38 Ohio St.3d 112 (requirement to delineate grounds for summary judgment)
- Hack v. Gillespie, 74 Ohio St.3d 362 (Ohio Supreme Court discussion of the fireman’s rule)
- Kay v. Cascone, 6 Ohio St.3d 155 (intervening acts, superseding cause, foreseeability)
- Menifee v. Ohio Welding Prods., Inc., 15 Ohio St.3d 75 (elements of negligence)
- Pendry v. Barnes, 18 Ohio St.3d 27 (circumstances where superseding cause decided as matter of law)