Ciotto v. Hinkle
Decision Date | 20 September 2019 |
Docket Number | No. H-18-011,H-18-011 |
Citation | 2019 Ohio 3809,145 N.E.3d 1013 |
Parties | The ESTATE OF Linda CIOTTO, et al., Appellants v. Billie A. HINKLE, Appellee |
Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
DECISION AND JUDGMENT
{¶ 1} This matter is before the court on appeal from a judgment of the Huron County Court of Common Pleas, granting summary judgment and dismissing the claims of appellants, The Estate of Linda Ciotto, Deceased, Mary Ciotto and Michael Blair, individually and as co-administrators of the Estate, and Christopher Blair.1 For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
{¶ 2} On July 28, 2015, James Blair took his mother's loaded, unsecured gun from her bedroom, went next door, shot Linda Ciotto to death, and mutilated her body with her lawnmower because he was enraged that she mowed her lawn after dusk. His mother, appellee Billie Hinkle, had given Blair permission to move in with her about a year and a half earlier, after Blair lost his job. Blair is currently serving a life sentence for the murder.
{¶ 3} On July 25, 2016, appellants filed their claim against appellee, seeking damages for negligence and wrongful death, and for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.2 After the parties engaged in discovery, appellee moved for summary judgment on January 19, 2018, arguing the absence of any legal duty owed as to the negligence and wrongful death claims, and the lack of evidence to support the emotional distress claims. Finding no genuine issues of fact related to the appellants' claims, the trial court granted summary judgment, disposing of appellants' amended complaint in its entirety.
{¶ 4} This appeal followed, with appellants asserting the following assignments of error:
{¶ 5} Appellants argue genuine issues of fact remain as to each of their claims, challenging the trial court's determinations relative to the duty owed by appellee and the existence of disputed facts to support the emotional distress claims of appellants. Therefore, they contend, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment.
{¶ 6} The parties largely agree on the facts of this case. Appellee's 50 year-old son took appellee's loaded handgun, without her permission, walked next door to the house of appellant's decedent, Ciotto, and shot her as she mowed her lawn, resulting in her death. At the time of the murder, Blair lived with appellee, was unemployed, and rarely ventured out of appellee's house. Blair owned his own firearm, but had accessed appellee's handgun on two occasions a year before the murder, shooting it in the air from appellee's back deck after he had been drinking. Appellee ordered Blair to leave her firearm alone, and Blair complied for about a year, up until the night of the murder.
{¶ 7} The detailed recitation of the facts, provided by appellants, paints a picture that is shocking and horrific. There is no dispute, moreover, that Blair murdered Ciotto, mutilated her body, and then returned home to his bedroom, behaving as if nothing out of the ordinary had occurred.
Despite the fact that Blair's criminal actions directly caused the death, appellants filed suit against appellee, seeking to hold her liable for Blair's conduct. Based on existing legal precedent, the trial court determined, as a matter of law, that appellee was entitled to summary judgment as to all claims against her.
{¶ 8} We review the trial court's ruling on summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard as the trial court. Bonacorsi v. Wheeling & Lake Erie Ry. Co. , 95 Ohio St.3d 314, 2002-Ohio-2220, 767 N.E.2d 707, ¶ 24.
{¶ 9} As provided by Civ.R. 56(C), summary judgment is appropriate if the moving party demonstrates: "(1) that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact; (2) that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and that conclusions is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, who is entitled to have the evidence construed most strongly in his favor." Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co. , 54 Ohio St.2d 64, 66, 375 N.E.2d 46 (1978).
{¶ 10} In reviewing the trial court's judgment, we examine the evidence to determine whether a genuine issue of material fact remains in dispute. "A ‘material’ fact is one which would affect the outcome of the suit under the applicable substantive law." (Citation omitted.) Noe v. Keller, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-12-1199, 2013-Ohio-2251, 2013 WL 2404805, ¶ 27.
{¶ 11} In this case, the parties largely agree on the material, underlying facts. The dispute, instead, concerns the legal significance of these facts as they relate to the duty owed in negligence, and as to the support for the emotional distress claims. Appellants' assignments of error fall into two categories, challenging the trial court's determinations relative to the duty owed by appellee and whether the existence of disputed facts support the emotional distress claims of appellants. We will address each of appellants' assignments of error accordingly.
{¶ 12} Appellants asserted claims against appellee that are based on negligence and wrongful death. An action for wrongful death is a statutory claim, permitting recovery of damages for the decedent's estate, where "the death of a person is caused by wrongful act, neglect, or default which would have entitled the party injured to maintain an action and recover damages if death had not ensued[.]" R.C. 2125.01. In this case, appellants alleged negligence as the wrongful act.
{¶ 13} To prevail on a negligence claim, appellants must demonstrate the existence of a duty, breach of that duty, and a resulting injury. Mussivand v. David , 45 Ohio St.3d 314, 318, 544 N.E.2d 265 (1989). "While negligence actions always involve mixed questions of law and fact, the existence of a duty is, in the first instance a question of law for the court." Clemets v. Heston , 20 Ohio App.3d 132, 134-135, 485 N.E.2d 287 (6th Dist.1985).
{¶ 14} The allegations of negligence in appellants' amended complaint include a mixture of averments referencing both affirmative conduct under premises liability and a failure to act to control or prevent the criminal conduct of a third party. The allegations include the following:
{¶ 15} Based on the pleading, appellants argue theories of duty that lack support under existing Ohio law, whether the alleged duty...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Abbott v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. (In re E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. C-8 Personal Injury Litig.)
...of injury to the plaintiff."); Conte v. Gen. Housewares Corp. , 215 F.3d 628, 636 (6th Cir. 2000) (same); Est. of Ciotto v. Hinkle , 145 N.E.3d 1013, 1019–20 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019) ("[F]oreseeability defin[es] the scope and extent of the duty." (quotation marks omitted)); see also Palsgraf v.......
-
Masterson v. Brody, 111035
...Club do not arise from a theory of premises liability. See, e.g., Estate of Ciotto v. Hinkle , ––– Ohio St.3d ––––, 2019-Ohio-3809, 145 N.E.3d 1013, ¶ 26 (6th Dist.) (Ohio courts considered the duty to protect others from criminal conduct without referencing premises-liability standards), c......
-
Masterson v. Brody
...... 11} The Estate's claims against the Island Club do not. arise from a theory of premises liability. See, e.g.,. Estate of Ciotto v. Hinkle, 2019-Ohio-3809, 145 N.E.3d. 1013, ¶ 26 (6th Dist.) (Ohio courts considered the duty. to protect others from criminal conduct without ......
-
Masterson v. Brody
...... 11} The Estate's claims against the Island Club do not. arise from a theory of premises liability. See, e.g.,. Estate of Ciotto v. Hinkle, 2019-Ohio-3809, 145 N.E.3d. 1013, ¶ 26 (6th Dist.) (Ohio courts considered the duty. to protect others from criminal conduct without ......