530 N.E.2d 1338 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1988
This cause came on to be heard upon the appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County.
On February 13, 1986, plaintiffs Hugh and Eula Bowling brought an action against the defendant Brendamour's, Inc. and two of its employees. Plaintiffs, in their complaint, sought recovery for physical and emotional harm allegedly suffered when their departure from defendant Brendamour's store on February 18, 1984, with purchased merchandise from which Brendamour's employees had failed to remove a sensormatic tag, activating the store's theft alarm. Defendants responded to the complaint with an answer in which they set up the affirmative defense of the statute of limitations and a motion for summary judgment in which they asserted that plaintiffs' action was barred by R.C.
Plaintiffs on appeal concede that the one-year statute of limitations set forth under R.C.
Plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that they purchased merchandise from defendant Brendamour's Sporting Goods store, and that, as they were leaving the store, a sensormatic device left on one of the items of purchased merchandise caused an alarm to sound. They asserted that they were brought back into the store, treated rudely, embarrassed and unreasonably detained by the store's employees until the sensormatic device was located. Plaintiffs alleged in their second claim for relief "that the actions of the Defendants herein constitute a willful, wanton and intentional act upon the Plaintiffs herein and as a result thereof [the Plaintiffs] were physically and emotionally damaged." In their third claim for relief, plaintiffs asserted that, as a result of defendants' conduct, they "have been deprived of the other's services, consortium and society."
The Supreme Court of Ohio in Yeager v. Local Union 20 (1983),
Plaintiffs, in their third claim for relief, clearly state a claim for loss of consortium. The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that a claim for loss of consortium is subject to the four-year limitations period set forth under R.C.
Upon plaintiffs' concession that their claim for false imprisonment was barred by the one-year statute of limitations set forth under R.C.
Judgment accordingly.
KLUSMEIER, P.J., SHANNON and UTZ, JJ., concur.
"One who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to another is subject to liability for such emotional distress, and if bodily harm to the other results from it, for such bodily harm." *39