Pickard v. Univ. of Toledo

• Decision Date: 04 May 2022
• Docket Number: 2019-00738JD
• Citation: 2022 Ohio 2385
• Parties: KIMBERLY PICKARD, et al. Plaintiffs v. UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO Defendant
• Court: Ohio Court of Claims

2022-Ohio-2385

KIMBERLY PICKARD, et al. Plaintiffs
v.
UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO Defendant

No. 2019-00738JD

Court of Claims of Ohio

May 4, 2022

Sent to S.C. Reporter 7/11/2022

JUDGMENT ENTRY

PATRICK E. SHEERAN JUDGE

{¶1} On December 20, 2021, Plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate's December 3, 2021 decision recommending judgment in favor of Defendant, University of Toledo (UT). Defendant did not file a response. For the reasons set forth below, the Court declines to adopt the Magistrate's recommendation and instead enters judgment in favor of Plaintiff.

Standard of Review

{¶2} Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(i) provides, "A party may file written objections to a magistrate's decision within fourteen days of the filing of the decision, whether or not the court has adopted the decision during that fourteen-day period as permitted by Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(e)(i)." "Whether or not objections are timely filed, a court may adopt or reject a magistrate's decision in whole or in part, with or without modification." Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(b). The Court "shall undertake an independent review as to the objected matters to ascertain that the magistrate has properly determined the factual issues, and appropriately applied the law." Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(d). In reviewing the objections, the Court does not act as an appellate court but rather conducts "a de novo review of the facts and conclusions in the magistrate's decision." (Citations omitted.) Ramsey v. Ramsey, 10th Dist. No. 13AP-840, 2014-Ohio-1921, ¶ 17. Objections "shall be specific and state with particularity all grounds for objection." Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(ii). An objection to a factual finding must be supported "by a transcript of all the evidence submitted to the magistrate

1

relevant to that finding or an affidavit of that evidence if the transcript is not available." Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b)(iii).

Factual Background

{¶3} Plaintiff, Kimberly Pickard, was visiting her nephew, a patient at Defendant's hospital. After parking her vehicle, Plaintiff walked through a surface lot towards the hospital's entrance. While walking between several parked cars, Plaintiff's right foot hit a depression in the asphalt leading to a drainage grate. This depression was two to three inches deep and two to three feet wide. Plaintiff fell and broke a bone in her foot. As a result, Plaintiff filed claims of negligence and loss of consortium against Defendant. The issues of liability and damages were bifurcated, and a trial on the issue of...