# Darling v. Fairfield Medical Center > Ohio Court of Appeals · July 16, 2001 · 142 Ohio App. 3d 682 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3767102 ## Case - **Full name:** DARLING, Appellant, v. FAIRFIELD MEDICAL CENTER, Appellee - **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals - **Decided:** July 16, 2001 - **Citations:** 142 Ohio App. 3d 682; 756 N.E.2d 754 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Dissent by Farmer - **Judges:** Hoffman, Gwin, Farmer - **Cited by:** 7 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3767102 ## Opinion text Farmer, J., dissenting. Although I concur that there may be more than one proximate cause in the incident sub judice, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s view that this matter should be remanded for trial on the issue of the use of the treadmill. I would find that genuine issues of material fact exist only on the issue of the placement of the treadmills as is stated in Dr. Herbert’s opinion, quoted above. I believe the majority treads on thin ice when it seeks to superimpose upon a business a higher standard of care toward invitees because it is allied with a medical provider. To assume that any health club should have to go so far as to warn treadmill users that closing their eyes might make them lose their balance is to go one step beyond the pale. Medical facilities can be charged with the restricted standard of care toward business invitees without any heightened responsibility when the facility conducts an ordinary nonmedical function, e.g., ATM machine or a McDonald’s restaurant on premises, or cooperation with a YMCA facility. I would reverse on the sole issue of proximate cause and placement of the treadmill. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3767102. Public record. Not legal advice.