Odom v. Davis, Unpublished Decision (9-16-2002)
Odom v. Davis, Unpublished Decision (9-16-2002)
Opinion of the Court
{¶ 3} In January 2001, The Odoms filed a complaint against Ralph Davis, dba Davis Rentals, and three "John Doe" defendants. However, The Odoms never served the complaint on the "John Doe" defendants. They captioned their first cause of action as "Premises Liability" and alleged that Davis had a duty under common law to use the utmost care to avoid injury to The Odoms and other "business invitees", including the duty to make reasonable inspections and discover hazardous conditions. The Odoms captioned their second cause of action as "negligence per se [under R.C.]
{¶ 4} After the parties completed discovery, Davis filed a motion for summary judgment. The Odoms opposed Davis' motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment to Davis. In its entry the trial court considered only the claim based upon negligence per se. The Odoms appeal and assert the following assignments of error:
{¶ 5} "I. The [trial court] erred in granting [Davis] summary judgment as a matter of law under [Civ.R.] 56, despite the existence of genuine issues of material fact.
{¶ 6} "II. The [trial court] erred to the prejudice of [The Odoms] and abused its discretion when it violated the [Civ.R.] 56 standard of review (a) by failing to apply or properly apply the law of common law negligence to the evidence, (b) by basing its decision in part on irrelevant evidence, (c) by construing the evidence most strongly in favor of [Davis.]"
{¶ 8} Because the entry appealed by The Odoms disposed of fewer than all of the claims without certifying under Civ.R. 54(B) that there is no just cause for delay, the order is not final and appealable. Here, the trial court's entry on Davis' motion for summary judgment did not consider The Odoms' premises liability claim, Sarah's loss of consortium claim, or Sarah's claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress. While Sarah's loss of consortium claim may have been at least implicitly denied by the grant of summary judgment on the negligence per se claim, see Ratliff v. Morehead (May 19, 1998), Scioto 97CA2505, citing State exrel. Wright v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority (1996),
APPEAL DISMISSED.
The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Athens County Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Exceptions.
Abele, P.J. Evans, J. Concur in Judgment and Opinion.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.