2018 Ohio 1118
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- On Jan. 12, 2015, Scott Boehl felt lightheaded while driving, exited I-275, entered a restaurant parking lot, reversed, then crossed a public road and collided with multiple vehicles, including Shirley Roberts'.
- Boehl claimed he lost consciousness during the incident; he had been assaulted a week earlier and suffered a concussion, and six to eight years earlier had a similar episode of lightheadedness while driving that led to unconsciousness and a minor collision.
- Roberts sued for negligence; Boehl asserted the affirmative defense of sudden medical emergency (loss of consciousness that was not foreseeable).
- At summary judgment, Boehl submitted his deposition, a bystander affidavit, and an expert affidavit from Dr. Gerald Steiman opining the loss of consciousness was unforeseeable (possible seizure or panic/vasovagal event).
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Boehl, finding he met his burden and Roberts failed to show a genuine issue of material fact rebutting foreseeability.
- The Court of Appeals reversed in part: it held genuine issues of fact remain on foreseeability (so summary judgment for Boehl was improper) and remanded for trial; it also reversed the related UIM/UM dismissal tied to that liability finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Boehl is entitled to the sudden medical emergency defense (was he suddenly stricken by loss of consciousness)? | Roberts: Facts show progressive lightheadedness for miles before collapsing, undermining "suddenness." | Boehl: He was rendered unconscious during the incident and supports the claim with deposition, witness affidavit, and expert opinion. | Court assumed, for decision, Boehl may have been unconscious but found resolution of foreseeability dispositive; did not grant summary judgment on the defense. |
| Whether the loss of consciousness was foreseeable to Boehl (foreseeability bar to the defense) | Roberts: Prior similar episode that led to unconsciousness makes the accident foreseeable to a reasonably prudent person in Boehl’s position. | Boehl: Dr. Steiman opined the event was unforeseeable and not anticipated despite prior history. | Court: Genuine factual issues on foreseeability exist (conflicting evidence and credibility issues). Summary judgment for Boehl reversed and issue reserved for factfinder. |
Key Cases Cited
- Roman v. Estate of Gobbo, 99 Ohio St.3d 260 (2003) (explains sudden medical emergency defense and that such cases are usually for the factfinder; identifies foreseeability and timing questions)
- Lehman v. Haynam, 164 Ohio St. 595 (1956) (articulates the sudden medical emergency rule and burden of proof on defendant-driver)
- Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc., 82 Ohio St.3d 367 (1998) (sets Ohio summary judgment standard)
- Ramage v. Central Ohio Emergency Servs., Inc., 64 Ohio St.3d 97 (1992) (expert testimony only required when issue is beyond common knowledge)