Williams v. First United Church of Christ, No. 73-467
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Ohio |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM; C. WILLIAM O'NEILL |
| 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 |
| Parties | , 66 O.O.2d 311 WILLIAMS et al., Appellees, v. FIRST UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST, Appellant. |
Page 150
v.
FIRST UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST, Appellant.
On November 9, 1966, the First United Church of Christ held its annual bazaar [309 N.E.2d 925] 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
Page 151
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.
PER CURIAM.
Civ.R. 56(C), in pertinent part, provides:
'* * * Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleading, depositions * * * affidavits * * * timely filed in the action, 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. * * * A summary judgment shall not be rendered until it appears from such evidence or stipulation and only therefrom, that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, such party being entitled to have the evidence or stipulation construed most strongly in his favor. * * *'
Civ.R. 56(C) is based upon Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schultz v. Boy Scouts of America, Inc.
...Ohio, like 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. Neighborho......
-
Deoma v. Shaker Heights, No. 57049
...Civ.R. 56 and view the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Williams v. First United Church of Christ (1974), 37 Ohio St.2d 150, 66 O.O.2d 311, 309 N.E.2d 924. The burden of establishing that the material facts are not in dispute, and that no genuine issue of facts exi......
-
Stemen v. Shibley
...Ins. Co. (1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 427, 433, 424 N.E.2d 311 [21 Page 269 O.O.3d 267]. See Williams v. First United Church of Christ (1974), 37 Ohio St.2d 150, 309 N.E.2d 924 [66 O.O.2d With the above guidelines set forth, we now consider Assignments of Error Nos. 2 and 3 together since they bot......
-
Keenan v. Huntington Acceptance Co., No. 62879
...procedures 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,...
-
Schultz v. Boy Scouts of America, Inc.
...Ohio, like 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. Neighborho......
-
Deoma v. Shaker Heights, No. 57049
...Civ.R. 56 and view the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Williams v. First United Church of Christ (1974), 37 Ohio St.2d 150, 66 O.O.2d 311, 309 N.E.2d 924. The burden of establishing that the material facts are not in dispute, and that no genuine issue of facts exi......
-
Stemen v. Shibley
...Ins. Co. (1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 427, 433, 424 N.E.2d 311 [21 Page 269 O.O.3d 267]. See Williams v. First United Church of Christ (1974), 37 Ohio St.2d 150, 309 N.E.2d 924 [66 O.O.2d With the above guidelines set forth, we now consider Assignments of Error Nos. 2 and 3 together since they bot......
-
Keenan v. Huntington Acceptance Co., No. 62879
...procedures 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,...