Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Caruso v. Erie Shoreline Properties, LLC

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District, Ottawa

April 27, 2018

Cindy A. Caruso, et al. Appellants
v.
Erie Shoreline Properties, LLC, et al. Appellees

          Trial Court No. 16CV209

          Kevin J. Zeiher and Zachary E. Dusza, for appellants.

          Michael P. Gilbride, for appellees.

          DECISION AND JUDGMENT

          JENSEN, J.

         {¶ 1} Cindy A. Caruso and her husband, Frank Caruso, appeal from the December 11, 2017 judgment entry of the Ottawa County Court of Common Pleas which granted summary judgment to Erie Shoreline Properties, LLC ("Erie") and Moore

          Lakeshore Investments, LLC ("Moore") on Mrs. Caruso's personal injury claim. For the following reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

         {¶ 2} On September 20, 2015, Mrs. Caruso fell and fractured her ankle while playing a round of putt-putt golf at Island Adventures Putt-Putt Golf Course in Catawba Island, Ottawa County, Ohio ("Island Adventures"). Island Adventures is owned and operated by Erie and Moore.

         {¶ 3} On July 18, 2016, the Carusos filed a complaint against Erie and Moore. The complaint alleged that Erie and Moore were "negligent in the construction and maintenance of the golf course and in violating Ohio Building Code Section 1013.1" and "negligent per se in the construction of the raised green, in failing to provide guards." The Carusos further alleged that as a direct and proximate result of the negligence, Mrs. Caruso sustained "painful personal injuries, " and incurred medical expenses and "loss of the enjoyment of life." The Carusos further alleged that Mr. Caruso "lost the care, comfort, society, affection and consortium of his wife." Erie and Moore filed an answer denying the allegations and setting forth a number of affirmative defenses.

         {¶ 4} On March 29, 2017, Erie and Moore filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted by the trial court. Caruso appeals, raising one assignment of error for our review:

The trial court committed reversible error when it found that there is no issue of material of [sic] fact yet to be litigated and that Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

         {¶ 5} Caruso contends that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment, because it incorrectly concluded that the hazard had been open and obvious; alternatively, she argues that the trial court erred in finding no genuine issue of material fact as to whether attendant circumstances excused her failure to recognize the open and obvious hazard. Finally, she argues that fall would have been prevented had Erie and Moore installed a guard required by the Ohio Basic Building Code.

         {¶ 6} Our standard of review for summary judgment is the same as that of the trial court. We review cases "de novo, governed by the standard set forth in Civ.R. 56." Comer v. Risko, 106 Ohio St.3d 185, 186, 2005-Ohio-4559, 833 N.E.2d 712. Applying Civ.R. 56(C), summary judgment is appropriate where: (1) there is no genuine issue as to any material fact; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) reasonable minds can come to only one conclusion, and that conclusion is adverse to the nonmoving party. Bostic v. Connor, 37 Ohio St.3d 144, 146524 N.E.2d 881 (1988).

         {¶ 7} In any negligence action, the plaintiff must demonstrate the existence of a duty, a breach of that duty, and an injury proximately resulting from the breach of the duty. Mussivand v. David, 45 Ohio St.3d 314, 318, 544 N.E.2d 265 (1989); Jeffers v. Olexo, 43 Ohio St.3d 140, 142, 539 N.E.2d 614 (1989).

         {¶ 8} Under the common law related to premises liability, the status of a person who enters on land determines the nature and extent of the legal duty owed to him or her. Shump v. First Continental-Robinwood Assocs.,71 Ohio St.3d 414, 417, 644 N.E.2d 291 (1994). In this case, there is no dispute that Mrs. Caruso was a business invitee. Thus, Erie and Moore could expect ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.