McCoy v. Murray, 2009 Ohio 1658 (Ohio App. 4/6/2009)
| Decision Date | 06 April 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 4-08-36.,4-08-36. |
| Parties | Wayne D. McCoy, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Michael K. Murray, et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Defiance County Common Pleas Court, Trial Court No. 07-CV-38822.
Judgment Affirmed.
Peter D. Traska and Gary Cowan for Appellants.
Stephen Korhn for Appellee, Michael K. Murray.
Edward T. Mohler for Appellee, Nationwide Insurance Company.
{¶1} Plaintiffs-Appellants Wayne and Anne McCoy ("the McCoys") appeal from the October 1, 2008 Judgment Entry of the Court of Common Pleas, Defiance County, Ohio granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees Michael K. Murray ("Murray") and Nationwide Insurance Company ("Nationwide").
{¶2} This case arises out of facts which are undisputed by the parties. On October 4, 2005 Murray was driving his vehicle on State Route 15 in a rural area of Defiance County, Ohio. While driving, Murray suddenly lost vision and consciousness and his vehicle left the highway. Murray then continued some distance through a cornfield before his vehicle crashed into the McCoys' parked vehicle. The McCoys' parked vehicle was pushed, by Murray's vehicle, into the McCoys' home, through an exterior wall into the kitchen, where Wayne McCoy was apparently injured.
{¶3} On September 28, 2007 the McCoys filed a complaint against Murray and Nationwide. In their complaint, the McCoys requested money damages, uninsured/underinsured benefits, medical payments, declaratory judgment, interest, and court costs. The monetary damages were requested based on Wayne McCoy's injuries and Anne McCoy's loss of consortium. The insurance benefits were requested from Nationwide, the McCoys' uninsured/underinsured motorists coverage insurer.
{¶4} Murray filed an answer on October 19, 2007 asserting numerous defenses, including the defense of sudden medical emergency. On May 31, 2008 Murray filed for summary judgment based on the theory of sudden medical emergency. On June 13, 2008 Nationwide also filed a motion for summary judgment.
{¶5} On July 15, 2008 the McCoys filed a brief in opposition to the defendants' motions for summary judgment. Murray filed a reply on August 22, 2008.
{¶6} On September 10, 2008 the trial court held a hearing on the motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Murray and Nationwide on October 1, 2008 on the theory of sudden medical emergency.
{¶7} The McCoys now appeal, asserting one assignment of error.
THE TRIAL COURT WAS INCORRECT TO GRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE SUDDEN MEDICAL EMERGENCY DEFENSE WHEN THE DEFENDANT'S RECORDS SHOW CHEST PAINS DEVELOPING A YEAR AND A HALF PRIOR TO THE ACCIDENT, THE DEFENDANT'S FAILURE TO SEEK TREATMENT FOR THOSE CHEST PAINS, AND A DOCUMENTED HISTORY OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH TREATMENT FOR OTHER HEART RELATED CONDITIONS.
{¶8} In their sole assignment of error, the McCoys argue that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Murray based on the defense of a sudden medical emergency.
{¶9} An appellate court reviews a grant of summary judgment independently, and without any deference to the trial court. Conley-Slowinski v. Superior Spinning & Stamping Co. (1998), 128 Ohio App.3d 360, 363, 714 N.E.2d 991. The standard of review for a grant of summary judgment is de novo. Hasenfratz v. Warnement 3rd Dist. No. 1-06-03, 2006-Ohio-2797 citing Lorain Nat'l. Bank v. Saratoga Apts. (1989), 61 Ohio App.3d 127, 572 N.E.2d 198.
{¶10} A grant of summary judgment will be affirmed only when the requirements of Civ.R.56(C) are met. This requires the moving party to establish: (1) that there are no genuine issues of 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 conclusion is adverse to the non-moving party, said party being entitled to have the evidence construed most strongly in his favor. Civ.R.56(C); see Horton v. Harwick Chem. Corp. (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 679, 653 N.E.2d 1196, 1995-Ohio-286, paragraph three of the syllabus. Additionally, Civ.R. 56(C) mandates that summary judgment shall be rendered if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of evidence, and written stipulations of fact show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
{¶11} The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of identifying the basis for its motion in order to allow the opposing party a "meaningful opportunity to respond." Mitseff v. Wheeler (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 112, 116, 526 N.E.2d 798. The moving party also bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact as to an essential element of the case. Dresher v. Burt (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 292, 662 N.E.2d 264, 1996-Ohio-107. Once the moving party demonstrates that he is entitled to summary judgment, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to produce evidence on any issue which that party bears the burden of production at trial. See Civ.R. 56(E).
{¶12} In ruling on a summary judgment motion, a court is not permitted to weigh evidence or choose among reasonable inferences, rather, the court must evaluate evidence, taking all permissible inferences and resolving questions of credibility in favor of the non-moving party. Jacobs v. Racevskis (1995), 105 Ohio App.3d 1, 7, 663 N.E.2d 653.
{¶13} In the present case, the McCoys argue that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Murray based on the sudden medical emergency defense. The defense of sudden medical emergency was initially stated in Ohio in Lehman v. Haynam (1956), 164 Ohio St. 595, 133 N.E.2d 97, and was subsequently clarified in Roman v. Estate of Gobbo, 99 Ohio St.3d 260, 791 N.E.2d 422, 2003-Ohio-3655. The rule articulated by the Ohio Supreme Court is that unconsciousness is a defense against a claim of negligence as follows:
an operator of a motor vehicle who, while driving, becomes suddenly stricken by a fainting spell or loses consciousness from an unforeseen cause, and is unable to control the vehicle, is not chargeable with negligence or gross negligence. Stated differently, fainting or momentary loss of consciousness while driving is a complete defense to an action based on negligence (and a fortiori to an action based on gross negligence) if such loss of consciousness was not foreseeable.
Roman, 99 Ohio St.3d at 266 quoting Lehman, 164 Ohio St. at 599-600. The Roman Court also rearticulated that the party asserting the sudden medical emergency defense bears the burden of proof with respect to the defense. Roman, 99 Ohio St.3d at 273 quoting Lehman, 164 Ohio St. 595 at paragraph three of syllabus. Therefore, Murray had the burden of proving both unconsciousness and that the unconsciousness was not foreseeable.
{¶14} In the instant case, the McCoys do not dispute that Murray lost consciousness while driving due to cardiac arrhythmia. Instead, the McCoys argue that Murray's loss of consciousness was foreseeable. In considering foreseeability, the Roman Court noted that "the foreseeability inquiry in cases in which a defendant raises the defense of sudden medical emergency frequently amounts to a consideration by the factfinder of whether the defendant driver should have been driving at all." Roman, 99 Ohio St.3d at 271-272. To qualify for the defense, the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he had no reason to anticipate or foresee the sudden loss of consciousness. Dunlap v. W.L. Logan Trucking Co. 161 Ohio App.3d 51, 67, 829 N.E.2d 356, 2005-Ohio-2386 citing Lehman, 164 Ohio St. at 600.
{¶15} Moreover, the Roman Court clarified the foreseeability issue as follows:
an automobile driver who suddenly and quite unexpectedly suffers a heart attack does not become negligent when he loses control of his car and drives it in a manner which would otherwise be unreasonable; but one who knows that he is subject to such attacks may be negligent in driving at all.
{¶16} In the present case, Murray submitted several affidavits with his motion for summary judgment. Specifically, Murray submitted the affidavit of Dr. Samer Obri, his physician since 2002 whose affidavit provided, in pertinent part, as follows:
4. *** Prior to October 4, 2005, Michael Keith Murray did not have any history of heart problems or exhibit any symptoms which indicated any type of heart related conditions.
5. Prior to October 4, 2005, I never told Michael K. Murray not to drive any motor vehicle, and there was no medical reason to restrict his driving of motor vehicles.
*** 8. It is my opinion, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that Michael Keith Murray's suddenly losing vision while driving on October 4, 2005 and having a syncopal episode (fainting episode) was a result of cardiac arrhythmia; all of which was a result of his severe coronary artery disease which was asymptomatic until that moment. This situation and condition could not have been foreseen by Michael K. Murray. It is my further opinion, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that it was the coronary artery blockage that rendered Michael K. Murray unconscious, and Murray would have been unable to control his automobile while suffering this attack.
{¶17} Moreover, in his own affidavit, Murray stated that prior "to October 4, 2005, [he had] never been treated for any heart related conditions." Alternatively, in their motion in opposition, the McCoys argued that Murray was "a time bomb" with a long history of high blood pressure, high cholesterol, non-compliance with medication, chest pains, and smoking. The McCoys presented the opinion of Dr. Stephen A. Rudolph, who had never treated Murray but reviewed his...
To continue reading
Request your trial