2018 Ohio 3568
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Plaintiff Scott Scheel was injured in a 27‑second physical altercation at Horseshoe Casino Cleveland in June 2012; casino security broke up the fight and Atlantis Security (which supplied on‑site Cleveland police officers) arrived after the fight ended.
- The Casino contracted with Atlantis to “provide the armed security services” listed in Exhibit B; Exhibit B stated Atlantis would “provide police services upon request of the client.” Atlantis officers were stationed at seven fixed posts and responded when dispatched by the casino; they were not permitted to patrol the gaming floor or control the casino’s surveillance system.
- Scheel sued the Casino and Atlantis for negligence and spoliation (among other claims). The Casino settled; Atlantis moved for summary judgment on negligence and spoliation and the trial court granted it.
- Scheel appealed, arguing (1) Atlantis had both contractual and common‑law duties (or at least ambiguity about duties) and breached them causing his injury, and (2) Atlantis willfully destroyed surveillance footage after notice of probable litigation.
- The appellate court reviewed de novo and affirmed summary judgment for Atlantis: it held Atlantis owed no duty to Scheel under the contract or common law (foreseeability and contract terms did not impose the asserted duties), and Scheel produced no evidence Atlantis possessed or controlled the surveillance footage or willfully destroyed it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Atlantis owed Scheel a duty under the Security Agreement or common law to prevent the altercation | Atlantis contracted to provide “police services” and thus had a duty to protect patrons and ensure adequacy of the casino’s security plan; contract language is ambiguous | The contract limited Atlantis to police services "upon request" and fixed posts; Atlantis did not develop or control the casino security plan and was not required to patrol or modify the plan | Held: No duty. The contract and parties’ intent show Atlantis was not responsible for the casino’s security plan or roving patrols; summary judgment for Atlantis affirmed |
| Whether Atlantis owed a duty based on foreseeability of fights at a casino | Fights are foreseeable in casinos; Atlantis’s role in providing police services created a duty to prevent foreseeable injuries | Prior incidents and foreseeability were managed by casino security; Atlantis was not informed of or in control of reports and only responded when dispatched, so the injury was not foreseeable to Atlantis | Held: No duty on foreseeability grounds; foreseeable risk was attributable to casino security, not Atlantis |
| Whether Atlantis willfully destroyed surveillance footage (spoliation) | Atlantis had responsibility for investigating/preserving evidence and intentionally deleted video showing moments leading up to the fight after probable litigation was known | Atlantis never owned, controlled, or had access to the casino’s surveillance system or tapes; it could only obtain footage from the casino | Held: No genuine issue of material fact that Atlantis possessed or controlled the footage or willfully destroyed it; spoliation claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (1996) (standard of de novo appellate review for summary judgment)
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64 (1978) (elements for granting summary judgment under Civ.R. 56)
- Texler v. D.O. Summers Cleaners & Shirt Laundry Co., 81 Ohio St.3d 677 (1998) (elements of negligence: duty, breach, proximate cause, damages)
- Hill v. Sonitrol of S.W. Ohio, 36 Ohio St.3d 36 (1988) (security‑contract terms govern whether a security company owes a duty to injured third parties)
- Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co., 162 N.E. 99 (N.Y. 1928) (foreseeability defines scope of duty)