|
|
Meadows v. Durrani
| C-250109, C-250115 | CIV.R. 42 – CIV.R. 50(B) – CIV.R. 59(A) – COMMON QUESTIONS OF LAW OR FACT – CONSOLIDATED TRIALS – EVID.R. 403 – EVID.R. 702 – EXPERT TESTIMONY – FUTURE MEDICAL DAMAGES – JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT – MOTION FOR A NEW TRIAL – PREJUDGMENT INTEREST – SETOFF: The trial court abused its discretion by joining plaintiffs’ claims for trial under Civ.R. 42 where plaintiffs did not share common questions of law and fact, and it erred in part by allowing plaintiffs’ medical expert to testify beyond his area of expertise but these errors were harmless where the jury would have reached the same verdict even without these errors. [See CONCURRENCE: “Commonality” under Civ.R. 42(A) and Civ.R. 23 does not have the same meaning because the rules serve different purposes; any error in the consolidation of plaintiffs’ trials was harmless.] The trial court did not err in admitting testimonial evidence concerning a plaintiff’s abnormal bone that was potentially cancerous where the defendant-doctor’s failure to follow up on the abnormality was relevant to proving the plaintiff’s negligence claim and the testimony’s probative value was not outweighed by its prejudicial effect. The trial court did not err in allowing cumulative expert testimony as to the standard of care where the probative value of the evidence outweighed any potential harm. The trial court erred in denying defendants’ request for a setoff because intentional tortfeasors are entitled to a setoff under R.C. 2307.28(A). The trial court erred by awarding future medical expenses where there was no expert testimony establishing the anticipated course of future treatment, the likelihood that treatment would be required, and the projected costs associated with that treatment sufficient to sustain the award. The trial court did not err in awarding plaintiffs’ prejudgment interest, where the court properly determined that plaintiffs made good-faith efforts to settle and defendants failed to make good-faith efforts to settle. | Nestor | Hamilton |
8/26/2026
|
8/26/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3324 |
|
Oliver v. Cobco Ents., L.L.C.
| C-250541 | SUMMARY JUDGMENT — PREMISES LIABILITY — NEGLIGENCE: Where plaintiff alleged that she slipped and fell on a word painted on the surface of a parking lot, the court’s grant of summary judgment for defendant premises owner was not erroneous because even when considering all facts in a light most favorable to plaintiff, plaintiff failed to introduce admissible evidence that defendant had notice of the alleged hazard. The court’s grant of summary judgment for defendant independent contractor that painted the word on the surface of the parking lot was erroneous because the open-and-obvious defense applies only to the premises owner. The court’s grant of summary judgment for defendant independent contractor was erroneous because plaintiff’s expert’s opinion that the independent contractor had negligently created a dangerous condition that caused plaintiff to fall created a genuine dispute of material fact. | Moore | Hamilton |
8/26/2026
|
8/26/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3325 |
|
Dunson v. Springfield Twp.
| C-250573 | SUMMARY JUDGMENT – IMMUNITY – R.C. CH. 2744 – WANTON MISCONDUCT – EMERGENCY CALL: The trial court did not err in denying summary judgment on the issue of immunity to defendant-appellant Springfield Township as a political subdivision and defendant-appellant police officer in his individual capacity because a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the officer’s conduct of exceeding the speed limit at night in a construction zone and crashing his police cruiser into a passing motorist constitutes wanton or reckless misconduct. The trial court erred in denying summary judgment on the police chief’s entitlement to immunity in his individual capacity because the record does not contain facts which could support a finding that the chief’s conduct was reckless. The appellate court will not address appellants’ arguments not relating to the denial of immunity because they are outside the scope of its review. | Nestor | Hamilton |
8/26/2026
|
8/26/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3326 |
|
State v. Luckey
| C-250684 | FOURTH AMENDMENT – SEARCH – EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES – MOTION TO SUPPRESS: The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress the warrantless search of defendant’s apartment because a young child left unsupervised in a house constitutes exigent circumstances to permit a warrantless entry to ensure the safety of the child. | Nestor | Hamilton |
8/26/2026
|
8/26/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3327 |
|
State v. Pride
| C-250686 | CRIMINAL DAMAGING – DISORDERLY CONDUCT – MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE – SUFFICIENCY – R.C. 2917.11 – R.C. 2909.06: Defendant’s convictions for criminal damaging and disorderly conduct were supported by sufficient evidence and not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence where the record included testimony from the victim, photos of the victim’s apartment depicting the damage, and a recording of the 9-1-1 call. | Nestor | Hamilton |
8/26/2026
|
8/26/2026
| 2026-Ohio-3328 |
|