Williams v. First United Church of Christ
Citation | 37 Ohio St.2d 150,309 N.E.2d 924,66 O.O.2d 311 |
Decision Date | 20 March 1974 |
Docket Number | No. 73-467,73-467 |
Parties | , 66 O.O.2d 311 WILLIAMS et al., Appellees, v. FIRST UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST, Appellant. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Ohio |
On November 9, 1966, the First United Church of Christ held its annual bazaar and supper. At that event, Mrs. Dorothy Williams, a member of the Church, was struck on the neck and shoulders by a coat rack which fell from a stage adjacent to where she was seated.
Mrs. Williams subsequently filed a suit against the Church, seeking damages for the injuries she allegedly sustained due to the negligence of the Church in failing to maintain the coat rack in a safe manner. *
Stephen Williams, her husband, filed an action in which he sought damages for loss of consortium. The two actions were consolidated upon motion of defendants.
The Church then filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming immunity from suit because it was a charitable and religious institution. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Church.
Plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed. The Court of Appeals based its decision upon the narrow ground that 'there exists a genuine issue of material fact which would obviate rendition of summary judgment * * *.' The court also expressed the opinion that the rule of limited liability of charitable hospitals for the torts of employees should be applied to all charitable institutions.
The cause is now before this court pursuant to the allowance of a motion to certify the record.
Cohen, Todd, Kite & Spiegel and Marshall C. Hunt, Jr., Cincinnati, for appellees.
McIntosh, McIntosh & Knabe and Bruce B. McIntosh, Cincinnati, for appellant.
Civ.R. 56(C), in pertinent part, provides:
* * *'
Civ.R. 56(C) is based upon Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thus, we have the advantage of interpretations by federal courts, as well as our own.
In the following cases, the United States Supreme Court emphasized the way in which a reviewing court should evaluate the record upon an appeal from a summary judgment:
'* * * We look at the record on summary judgment in the light most favorable to * * * the party opposing the motion * * *.' Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System (1962), 368 U.S. 464, 473, 82 S.Ct. 486, 491, 7 L.Ed.2d 458. Further, '* * * on summary judgment the inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts contained in such materials (depositions, affidavits and exhibits) must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.' United States v. Diebold (1962), 369 U.S. 654, 655, 82 S.Ct. 993, 994, 8 L.Ed.2d 176.
The record in this case contains the motion for summary judgment, parts of a deposition of Mrs. Williams taken by the attorney for the Church, a memorandum supporting the Church's motion for summary judgment and the respective pleadings.
It could be gleaned from the record that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Schultz v. Boy Scouts of America, Inc.
...New Jersey, recognized charitable immunity (see, Williams v. First United Church, 40 Ohio App.2d 187, 318 N.E.2d 562, affd. 37 Ohio St.2d 150, 309 N.E.2d 924 [1973]; Gibbon v. Young Women's Christian Assn., 170 Ohio St. 280, 164 N.E.2d 563 [1960]; but see, Albritton v. Neighborhood Centers ......
-
Deoma v. Shaker Heights
...... Williams v. First United Church of Christ (1974), 37 Ohio St.2d 150, ......
-
Stemen v. Shibley
...... his brief, sets forth four assignments of error, the first of which, if determined to be meritorious, would be ... Page 269 . O.O.3d 267]. See Williams v. First United Church of Christ (1974), 37 Ohio St.2d 150, ......
-
Keenan v. Huntington Acceptance Co., 62879
...in Ohio. Grau v. Kleinschmidt (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 84, 90, 31 OBR 250, 255, 509 N.E.2d 399, 404; Williams v. Church (1974), 37 Ohio St.2d 150, 151, 66 O.O.2d 311, 309 N.E.2d 924, 925. ...