McComis v. Baker

• Decision Date: 17 April 1974
• Citation: McComis v. Baker, 319 N.E.2d 391, 40 Ohio App.2d 332 (Ohio App. 1974)
• Parties: , 69 O.O.2d 304 McCOMIS et al., Appellants, v. BAKER et al., Appellees. *
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

Page 332

40 Ohio App.2d 332

319 N.E.2d 391, 69 O.O.2d 304

McCOMIS et al., Appellants, v.BAKER et al., Appellees. ^*

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

April 17, 1974.

Syllabus by the Court

A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict does not involve the weight of the evidence, and, where reasonable minds might reach different conclusions upon an issue of negligence, it is reversible error to sustain such a motion.

Arthur M. Sebastian, Columbus, for appellees.

John Emil Houchard, Plain City, for appellants.

KERNS, Judge.

The plaintiffs, Helen and James McComis, appellants herein, commenced this action in the Court of Common Pleas of Madison County, claiming damages for personal injuries sustained by Mrs. McComis when she fell at a laundromat owned and operated by the defendants, Esther and Wayne Baker, appellees herein.

The Cause was presented to a jury which returned a verdict of $9,000 for Helen McComis and $1,000 for her husband, James McComis.

Subsequently the Bakers filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.The trial court sustained the motion, and the present appeal is directed to the order sustaining the motion.

The Bakers operated a laundromat at 37 North West Street in West Jefferson, Ohio.Mr. and Mrs. McComis operated a flower shop nearby, and Mrs. McComis visited the laundromat about twice a week.On October 9, 1970, she entered and departed from the Town Street entrance to the laundry facility four times between about 10 a. m. and 12 a. m. As she entered the laundromat the fourth time, at about 12:00 a. m., she fell and sustained the injuries complained of herein.

The complaint filed by Mr. and Mr. McComis alleges that the Bakers improperly installed and failed to maintain a metal grill attached to a screen door, and that as the door closed the grill became detached, caught Helen McComis by the heel, and caused her to fall to the floor.

At the time of the accident, Mrs. McComis was the only person present at the laundromat, and when asked what happened when she fell, she answered that 'all I know is that something caught me by the heel and the next thing I knew I was going.'The defective condition of the grill was observed for the first time by plaintiffJames McComis, about two hours after the accident, at which time the grill was loose at the top and hanging down on some kind of a bar or hinge from the bottom.Mr. McComis then notified the Bakers of the condition of the grill and told them that his wife had been hurt by it.At that point, Mrs. Baker contacted a workman to do whatever was required to fix the door, and the workman, Mr. Hockenberry, reported to her later on the same day that he had repaired it.

According to the evidence, the laundromat was open twenty-four hours a day and seven days a week, and patrons carrying baskets sometimes pushed them against the grill to open the door.Mr. Baker testified that the screen door had been repaired on previous occasions and that the grills 'come loose every once in a while.'

On the day of the accident, the grill was attached to the door at the top with wood screws, and an exhibit submitted in evidence shows a number of unfilled screw holes where grills had previously come loose from the wood frame.

After the accident, Mrs. McComis was attended by her daughter Barbara Humphrey, who testified that she noticed a scratch on the back of her mother's heel.

Mrs. Humphrey also testified that her father asked her to go to the laundromat with him 'because mother said something about the door when I was taking her to the doctor's office' and 'we seen that the top of the guard on the screen door had come down and it was dragging the ground.'

The issue in the case is well stated in the brief of the appellees where they argue as follows:

'Giving the plaintiffs-appellants the benefit of all the evidence, there is absolutely no evidence showing negligence on the part of the defendants-appellees or that any defect in the door was the cause of the accident.We are not basing our argument on any claim of contributory negligence.We are basing it solely on the grounds that the evidence shows no negligence on the part of the defendants-appellees which proximately caused this unfortunate accident.'

Admittedly, the evidence presented by the plaintiffs was not overwhelming, and the two-hour interval between the time of the accident and the time of the discovery of the detached grill was also probably the source of some apprehension.

But a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict does not...