RONDA WICKS, as Administrator of the Estate of Paris D. Wicks, II, etc. Appellant
LOVER'S LANE MARKET, et al. Appellees
FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF
SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. CV 2015-08-4200
KENNETH D. MYERS, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
A. GREER and RICHARD CO. REZIE, Attorneys at Law, for
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
Jennifer Hensal, Judge.
Ronda Wicks appeals a judgment of the Summit County Court of
Common Pleas that granted summary judgment to Lover's
Lane Market on her wrongful death and other claims. For the
following reasons, this Court affirms in part and reverses in
A group of men attacked and killed Paris Wicks outside of the
Lover's Lane Market. Ms. Wicks, the administrator of Mr.
Wicks's estate, sued the Market, two of its employees,
and the men who committed the attack, alleging wrongful
death, gross negligence, and multiple theories of negligence.
Owners Insurance Company intervened and filed a complaint
seeking a declaration that it has no duty to defend or
indemnify the Market. After the men who committed the attack
failed to answer, the trial court granted Ms. Wicks a default
judgment against them.
Owners moved for summary judgment on its complaint, which the
trial court granted in part and denied in part. The Market
moved for summary judgment on Ms. Wicks's claims, which
the trial court granted. After the court determined the
amount of damages owed by the attackers, it dismissed
Owners' complaint as moot, and entered final judgment.
Ms. Wicks has appealed the trial court's decision to
grant summary judgment to the Market, assigning three errors.
This Court will rearrange and combine some of the assignments
of error for ease of disposition.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO LLM ON
WICKS'S WRONGFUL DEATH, SURVIVORSHIP, GROSS NEGLIGENCE,
NEGLIGENCE PER SE AND RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR CLAIMS AS
THOSE ISSUES WERE NOT PROPERLY BRIEFED OR ARGUED BY LLM.
Ms. Wicks argues that the trial court incorrectly granted
summary judgment to the Market on all of her claims because
it only moved for summary judgment on some of the claims.
Under Civil Rule 56(C), summary judgment is appropriate if:
(1) [n]o genuine issue as to any material fact remains to be
litigated; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law; and (3) it appears from the evidence that
reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and viewing
such evidence most strongly in favor of the party against
whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that conclusion
is adverse to that party.
Temple v. Wean United, Inc.,
50 Ohio St.2d 317, 327
(1977). To succeed on a motion for summary judgment, the
movant bears the initial burden of demonstrating that there
are no genuine issues of material fact concerning an
essential element of the opponent's case.
Dresherv. Burt,75 Ohio St.3d 280, 292
(1996). If the movant satisfies this burden, the nonmoving
party "must set forth specific facts showing that there
is a genuine issue for trial." Id. at 293,
quoting Civ.R. 56(E). This Court ...