Watson v. Highland Ridge Water & Sewer Assn., Inc.
2013 Ohio 1640
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Watson appeals summary judgments for Highland Ridge on Watson's two claims and on Highland Ridge's counterclaim.
- Watson's first claim alleges nearly one million gallons of water damaged an unoccupied residence due to a leak.
- Watson's second claim is slander per se based on Highland Ridge reporting a water theft to law enforcement.
- Highland Ridge is a not-for-profit that operates a private water system; Watson owned property in Washington County and leased it to a tenant who used Highland Ridge water.
- Watson's account was transferred to the tenant, the tenant vacated in 2009, and Highland Ridge padlocked the meter; later, removal of the padlock led to a large water flow and a bill issued to Watson.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Highland Ridge on both Watson's claims and on Highland Ridge's counterclaim for water charges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court correctly grant summary judgment on the damages/counterclaim? | Watson contends discovery issues left triable facts unresolved. | Highland Ridge shows contractual baselines and actual water use, entitling it to the charges. | Yes; summary judgment affirmed for Highland Ridge on damages/counterclaim. |
| Was Watson's slander per se claim properly rejected? | Highland Ridge's report of a possible theft to police implied theft by Watson. | No false statement by Highland Ridge; the mere report to law enforcement is not defaming Watson. | Yes; slander per se claim rejected. |
| Did the trial court abuse discretion by restricting discovery? | Watson needed more time and resources to complete discovery. | Watson had extension time, took depositions, and failed to file Civ.R. 56(F) affidavit for further extension. | No; discovery rulings were not an abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (Dresher standard for movant's initial burden on summary judgment)
- DIRECTV, Inc. v. Levin, 128 Ohio St.3d 68 (2010) (summary judgment standard; Civ.R. 56 requirements)
- Grimes v. Grimes, 2009-Ohio-3126 (4th Dist.) (appellate review of discovery rulings and Civ.R. 56)
- Smith v. McBride, 130 Ohio St.3d 51 (2011) (de novo review of summary judgment; Civ.R. 56)
- Hines v. Citizens Bank, 2013-Ohio-690 (4th Dist.) (Civ.R. 56(F) continuance requires affidavit; abuse of discretion standard)