Terex Corp. v. Grim Welding Co., 13977
Decision Date | 12 July 1989 |
Docket Number | No. 13977,13977 |
Parties | TEREX CORPORATION, Appellant, v. GRIM WELDING CO. et al., Appellees. * |
Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. In its legal sense, the word "contract" includes every description of agreement or obligation, whether verbal or written, whereby one party becomes bound to another to pay a sum of money or to perform or omit to do a certain act.
2. To show a contract implied in fact, services must be rendered, work performed or materials furnished by one party for another under such circumstances that the party to be charged knew or should have known that the services were given with the expectation of being paid on the basis of their reasonable worth.
R. Patrick Baughman and Susan S. Henderson, Cleveland, for appellant.
Roger W. Strassburg, Jr., Akron, and Stanley Keller, Cleveland, for appellees.
On December 17, 1985, an employee of the appellant, Terex Corp., was injured when a tractor-trailer, operated by appellee, Grim Welding Co., backed into a loading dock, striking and injuring the employee. The tractor was owned by Grim and was being driven by one of Grim's employees and was hauling a trailer owned by appellee, Keen Transport, Inc.
Terex, a self-insured employer, paid medical benefits and compensation to the employee due to the injuries sustained by him. Terex filed suit against Grim and Keen to recover the workers' compensation expenses paid to its employee and for future expenses.
Grim and Keen filed motions for summary judgment, which were granted by the trial court. Terex appeals from this decision.
In reviewing a summary judgment, the inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion and, if so viewed, reasonable minds can come to differing conclusions, the motion should be overruled. Hounshell v. American States Ins. Co. (1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 427, 433, 21 O.O.3d 267, 271, 424 N.E.2d 311, 315. It must be clear from the evidence that reasonable minds can come to one conclusion, that no genuine issue as to any material fact remains to be litigated and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Temple v. Wean United, Inc. (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 317, 327, 4 O.O.3d 466, 472, 364 N.E.2d 267, 274.
Recently, the Supreme Court has set the criteria for recovery. In Cincinnati Bell Tel. Co. v. Straley (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 372, 533 N.E.2d 764, the court stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McCarthy, Lebit, Crystal & Haiman Co., L.P.A. v. First Union Mgt., Inc.
...whereby one party becomes bound to another to pay a sum of money or to perform or omit to do a certain act. Terex Corp. v. Grim Welding Co. (1989), 58 Ohio App.3d 80, 568 N.E.2d 739, paragraph one of the syllabus. An enforceable contract may be created where there is an offer by one side, a......
-
United Nat. Ins. Co. v. Sst Fitness Corp.
... ... of being paid on the basis of their reasonable worth.") (citing Terex Corp. v ... Page 920 ... Grim Welding Co., 58 Ohio App.3d 80, 82, ... ...
-
First Nat'l Bank of Omaha v. Ibeam Solutions, LLC, 13AP–850.
...written or spoken words or by other acts or by the failure to act. Id. at 55, Section 19(1); see, also, Terex Corp. v. Grim Welding Co. (1989), 58 Ohio App.3d 80, 82, 568 N.E.2d 739, 741 (the term “contract” includes every description of agreement or obligation, whether verbal or written, w......
-
Curl v. Greenlee Textron, Inc.
...the failure to act. Id. (citing RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF THE LAW OF CONTRACTS § 19(1) (1981)); see also, Terex Corp. v. Grim Welding Co., 58 Ohio App.3d 80, 568 N.E.2d 739, 741 (1989) (the term "contract" includes every description of agreement or obligation, whether verbal or written, where......