Westfall v. Lemon
| Citation | 2015 Ohio 384 |
| Decision Date | 27 January 2015 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 14CA12 |
| Parties | CANDY WESTFALL, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MARK LEMON, et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Ohio) |
Sanford A. Meizlish, Barkan Meizlish Handelman Goodin DeRose Wentz, LLP, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellants.
Joseph A. Butauski, Caborn & Butauski Co., LPA, Dublin, Ohio, for Appellees.
McFarland, A.J.
{¶1} This is an appeal by Candy and Travis Westfall on behalf of their minor son, Joshua Westfall (hereinafter Appellant), of the trial court's summary judgment decision granted in favor of Appellees, Mark Lemon (hereinafter Appellee), and his employer, Matheny Motor Truck Company. On appeal, Appellants raise one assignment of error, contending that the trial court erred by entering summary judgment in favor Appellees when the record, construed in accordance with Civ.R. 56, reveals genuine issues of material fact and, as such, Appellees are not entitled to judgment as a matterof law. Because we conclude that Appellant's own actions were the proximate cause of his injuries and that even if Appellee was negligent in the operation of his vehicle, his negligence did not exceed the negligence of Appellant, we cannot conclude that the trial court erred in granting judgment, as a matter of law, in favor of Appellees. As such, Appellants' sole assignment of error is overruled. Accordingly, the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellees is affirmed.
FACTS
{¶2} On August 19, 2010, Appellant, Joshua Westfall, age 14, was driving an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) across State Route 7 in Washington County as he was engaged in farming activities in connection with his family's farm store known as Hensler's Town and Country Market. Upon crossing the road from the west heading in an east-bound direction, Appellant was struck by a van driven by Appellee, Mark Lemon, and owned by Lemon's employer, Matheny Motor Truck Company, which was traveling in the northbound lane. The record indicates another vehicle was traveling in the southbound lane at the time, but was not involved in the collision. Appellant sustained serious injuries and has no memory of the event.
{¶3} On August 16, 2012, Appellant's parents, Travis and Candy Westfall, filed a complaint on behalf of their minor son, Joshua, alleging negligence on the part of Appellant and his employer, which primarily claimed that Appellant failed to maintain an appropriate level of speed and control over his vehicle and thereby caused the collision. Appellees responded by denying the allegations contained in the complaint and alleging that Appellant's own negligence was the cause of his injuries. The matter then proceeded through the discovery process and depositions were taken of Travis, Candy and Joshua Westfall, Mark Lemon and Steven Belyus, Appellants' expert witness.
{¶4} Pertinent portions of these depositions will be discussed more fully below, however, it was the opinion of Belyus that Appellee was traveling between 62 and 72 m.p.h. in an area that had a posted speed limit of 55 m.p.h. Appellee testified that he was traveling at or below the posted speed limit and Appellees' expert opined, based upon his review of the "black box" contained in the van in which Appellee was driving, that Appellee was driving approximately 53 m.p.h. just prior to impact. The record is clear that Appellant had a sight line of the northbound lane of approximately 675 feet, however, according to Appellant's own expert, Appellant pulled into Appellee's lane of travel when Appellee was about200 feet and two seconds away. Appellants' expert further conceded that Appellee reacted appropriately when confronted with the sudden entry of Appellant into his path, by braking and swerving to miss Appellant.
{¶5} Appellees moved for summary judgment on July 31, 2013, essentially claiming that Appellee had a preferential right-of-way and that Appellant failed to yield that right-of-way, thereby causing the accident. Thus, Appellees argued Lemon was not negligent and that Appellant's injuries were solely caused by his own actions. Appellants filed a memorandum contra arguing that Appellee lost his preferential right-of-way when he operated his vehicle above the speed limit. Appellants further contended that questions regarding right-of-way, failure to yield and proximate cause precluded summary judgment. Over the objection of Appellants, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellees.
{¶6} In its decision, the trial court construed the evidence in favor of Appellants with regard to Appellee's vehicle speed and assumed arguendo Appellee was speeding. Even construing the evidence in a light most favorable to Appellants, the trial court determined that Appellant's negligence in failing to yield was the proximate cause of his injuries and that under comparative negligence principles, Appellants were barred from recovery, as no reasonable person could conclude that Appellee's negligenceexceeded Appellant's own negligence. It is from this decision that Appellants now bring their timely appeal, setting forth one assignment of error for our review.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
{¶7} On appeal, Appellants challenge the decision of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of Appellees, claiming the existence of genuine issues of material fact with respect to issues of vehicle speed, right of way, proximate cause and comparative negligence, which should have precluded summary judgment. A review of the record reveals that the trial court applied comparative negligence principles to determine that Appellant's negligence exceeded the negligence of Appellee, and, as such, Appellant was barred from recovery. Having made that determination, the trial court determined Appellee was entitled to judgment, as a matter of law.
{¶8} We review the trial court's decision on a motion for summary judgment de novo. Smith v. McBride, 130 Ohio St.3d 51, 2011-Ohio-4674, 955 N.E.2d 954, ¶ 12. "Accordingly, we afford no deference to the trialcourt's decision and independently review the record to determine whether summary judgment is appropriate." Snyder v. Stevens, 4th Dist. Scioto No. 12CA3465, 2012-Ohio-4120, ¶ 11.
{¶9} Under Civ.R. 56(C), summary judgment is appropriate only if " '(1) no genuine issue of any material fact remains, (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and (3) it appears from the evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and construing the evidence most strongly in favor of the nonmoving party, that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made.' "DIRECTV, Inc. v. Levin, 128 Ohio St.3d 68, 2010-Ohio-6279, 941 N.E.2d 1187, ¶ 15; quoting State ex rel. Duncan v. Mentor City Council, 105 Ohio St.3d 372, 2005-Ohio-2163, 826 N.E.2d 832, ¶ 9.
{¶10} "[A] party seeking summary judgment, on the ground that the nonmoving party cannot prove its case, bears the initial burden of informing the trial court of the basis for the motion, and identifying those portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact on the essential element(s) of the nonmoving party's claims." Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 293, 662 N.E.2d 264 (1996). To meet this burden, the moving party must be able to specifically point to the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts ofevidence, and written stipulations of fact, if any, timely filed in the action, which affirmatively demonstrate that the nonmoving party has no evidence to support the nonmoving party's claims. Id.; Civ.R. 56(C).
{¶12} The substantive law determines whether a genuine issue of material fact remains. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (1986); Turner v. Turner, 67 Ohio St.3d 337, 340, 617 N.E.2d 1123 (1993); Perez v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 35 Ohio St.3d 215, 218-19, 520 N.E.2d 198 (1988). As the court stated in Anderson, supra:
In the case sub judice, to determine whether genuine issues of material fact remain disputed, we must examine the law of negligence and comparative negligence.
{¶13} Negligence occurs when the defendant fails to recognize that he owes a duty to protect the plaintiff from harm and that failure proximately resulted in injury or damage to the plaintiff. Di Gildo v. Caponi, 18 Ohio St.2d 125, 127, 247 N.E.2d 732 (1969); Kauffman v. First-Central Trust Co., 151 Ohio St. 298, 306, 85 N.E.2d 796 (1949). " " Sickles v. Jackson Cty. Hwy. Dept., 196 Ohio App.3d 703, 2011-Ohio-6102, 965 N.E.2d 330; quoting McDonald v. Lanius, 3rd...
To continue reading
Request your trial