Baker v. Miller

• Decision Date: 20 October 1972
• Citation: 62 O.O.2d 356,294 N.E.2d 901,33 Ohio App.2d 248
• Parties: , 62 O.O.2d 356 BAKER et al., Appellants, v. MILLER et al., Appellees.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

Page 248

33 Ohio App.2d 248

294 N.E.2d 901, 62 O.O.2d 356

BAKER et al., Appellants, v.MILLER et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second District, Montgomery County.

Oct. 20, 1972.

Syllabus by the Court

In the exercise of its discretion, a court of common pleas may refuse to entertain a declaratory judgment action filed for the purpose of determining the validity of defenses to a pending negligence action.

Bieser, Greer & Landis, Dayton, for appellants.

Altick, McDaniel & Radabaugh, Dayton, for appellee Miller.

James E. Harrington, Henslee, Monek & Henslee, Chicago, Ill., and C. Richard Grieser, Columbus, for appellee Smith.

KERNS, Judge.

On January 9, 1970, a collision occurred which involved a train owned by plaintiffPenn Central Transportation Company, an appellant herein, and a car operated by defendantCarolyn L. Miller, an appellee herein, at a railroad crossing on Diamond Mill Road in Montgomery County, Ohio.At the time of the collision, defendantCharles M. Smith, an appellee herein, was an employee of Penn Central.He was working on the train and apparently fell and sustained injuries as a result of the collision.

Thereafter, Smith commenced an action against Penn Central in Cook County, Illinois, under the provisions of the Federal Employers' Liability Act.

While the action was pending in Illinois, Penn Central filed a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County which sets forth two claims for relief.The first claim seeks a judgment against defendant Miller for damages to the train and miscellaneous expenses in the amount of $403.29.The second claim is for a declaratory judgment ordering defendant Miller to pay any amount defendant Smith should recover from Penn Central and ordering that defendant Miller assume the defense of the lawsuit in Illinois.

In separate motions, each of the defendants moved for a dismissal of the complaint, and the present appeal is from the judgment sustaining the motions.

The court of common pleas has original jurisdiction in all civil cases where the sum or matter in dispute exceeds the exclusive original jurisdiction of county courts(R.C. 2305.01), but county courts have exclusive jurisdiction in actions for the recovery of sums not exceeding $500 (R.C. 1909.04).Hence, the common pleas court did not have jurisdiction of the claim for damages in the amount of $403.29.

The remaining allegations of the complaint seek the creation rather than the disposition of a claim or defense.In our opinion, the trial court was under no duty in a declaratory judgment action to resolve issues which were essentially and properly the subject matter of the negligence action.See1 C.J.S.Actions§ 18, p. 1031;Ennis v. Casey, 72 Idaho 181, 238 P.2d 435, 28 A.L.R.2d 952.Nor was it the province of a declaratory judgment to declare the validity or...