Opinion

Ross v. Columbus

  • 2014 Ohio 2738
Court
Ohio Court of Appeals
Filed
Jun 24, 2014
Status
Published
On the bench
Tyack
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

[Cite as Ross v. Columbus, 2014-Ohio-2738.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

James E. Ross, Jr., :

Plaintiff-Appellant, :

v. : No. 14AP-38

(C.P.C. No. 12CV-15050)

City of Columbus et al., :

(REGULAR CALENDAR)

Defendants-Appellees. :

D E C I S I O N

Rendered on June 24, 2014

John H. Bates, for appellant.

Ron O'Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Jesse W.

Armstrong, for appellee Franklin County Board

Commissioners.

APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas

TYACK, J.

{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, James E. Ross, Jr., is appealing from adverse rulings in

his lawsuit against the Franklin County Board of Commissioners ("Commissioners")

which he views as responsible for injuries he suffered when a wooden bench collapsed in a

courtroom on the 10th floor at the Franklin County Municipal Court Building. He assigns

two errors for our consideration:

[I.] THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE

ERROR AND/OR ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN

GRANTING DEFENDANT-APPELLEE'S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE BASIS THAT THE

DECISION IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD OR

EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF A PERSON'S RIGHT TO

TRIAL BY JURY, RULE 56 OF THE OHIO RULES OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE, THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSES OF THE

No. 14AP-38 2

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND THE OHIO

CONSTITUTION, ART. I § 5 AND § 16, AND IS AGAINST

THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.

[II.] THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE

ERROR AND/OR ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN

GRANTING DEFENDANT-APPELLEE'S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE BASIS THAT THE

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED WHEN VIEWED IN A LIGHT

MOST FAVORABLE TO THE PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATES

THAT THE ISSUE OF NEGLIGENCE IS IN DISPUTE AND

SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO THE TRIER OF FACT. THE

TRIAL COURTS GRANTING OF DEFENDANTS MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS IN VIOLATION OF A

PERSONS RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY, EVID.R. 801, AND

THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSES OF THE U.S.

CONSTITUTION AND THE OHIO CONSTITUTION, ART. I

§ 5 AND § 16.

{¶ 2} The building in which James E. Ross, Jr., was injured is 375 South High

Street in Columbus, Ohio. Years before Ross was injured, the Commissioners leased most

of the building to the city of Columbus which runs the Franklin County Municipal Court.

The Commissioners retained some ability to limit access to the building, but otherwise

turned over control of the courtroom floors of the building and their contents to the city of

Columbus. The city has security stations for screening of visitors to the building and is the

entity maintaining the building and its contents with the exception of parts of the 5th and

6th floors and parts of the basement. The city is responsible for the 10th floor where Ross

was injured.

{¶ 3} Before the trial court, the lease between the Commissioners, as owner of the

building, and the city of Columbus as the entity leasing the bulk of the building was

presented. The lease placed no duty on the Commissioners to inspect or monitor the

furniture in 375 South High Street on the courtroom floors. The trial court found the

Commissioners were a lessor out of control of those portions of the building which housed

the Franklin County Municipal Court.

{¶ 4} The caption for this case clearly indicates that the city of Columbus was

sued as a part of this case. The city of Columbus was clearly responsible for the portions

of the interior of the building where Ross was injured and not the Commissioners.

No. 14AP-38 3

{¶ 5} The irregularities in discovery which occurred did not change the

fundamental facts and are not assigned as error in this appeal. Part of the problem

centered in discovery being pursued before the lawsuit was commenced against the

Commissioners. Part involved attempts to pursue discovery after summary judgment was

granted. No reversible error occurred related to discovery, even had errors been assigned

addressing such issues.

{¶ 6} Both assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Franklin

County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

SADLER, P.J., and CONNOR, J., concur.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.