Thursday, May 23, 2024
Volume 131, Number 160

Call Us Today! 513-241-1450

Select Issue Date

1st District Court of Appeals Summaries

Print May 14, 2024 First District Court of Appeals Summaries
 
 
FIRST DISTRICT
COURT OF APPEALS
        
THESE SUMMARIES ARE NEITHER APPROVED IN ADVANCE NOR ENDORSED BY THE COURT.  THEY ARE NOT HEADNOTES OR SYLLABI.  INTERESTED PARTIES SHOULD OBTAIN COPIES OF THE ACTUAL DECISIONS FROM THE CLERK OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.
 
DATE: Friday, May 10, 2024
CAPTION: JONES V. DURRANI
APPEAL NOS.: C-220426, C-220427
TRIAL NOS.: A-1706486, A-1706427
KEY WORDS: MEDICAL MALPRACTICE — Civ.R. 42 — JOINT TRIAL — JURY INSTRUCTION — PREJUDICE — R.C. 1343.03 — PREJUDGMENT INTEREST — EVIDENCE
SUMMARY: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in joining two medical-malpractice actions for trial where there were issues of law and fact common to both cases that predominated in each case, the trial court instructed the jury that each case should be considered on its own merit, and the jury’s verdicts indicate that the jury was able to successfully parse through the evidence and reach independent conclusions as to both the common and unique questions of law and fact. 
The trial court erred in issuing an absent-defendant jury instruction where the instruction required, rather than permitted, a negative inference to arise from the defendant’s absence and did not limit the inference to only that evidence which the absent defendant would naturally produce, but such error did not amount to reversible error where there is no indication on the face of the record that the erroneous instruction was so prejudicial as to require reversal. 
The trial court abused its discretion in awarding the plaintiffs prejudgment interest where there is no evidence in the record to support the trial court’s factual findings under R.C. 1343.03(C). 
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART
JUDGES: OPINION by ZAYAS, P.J.; CROUSE and KINSLEY, JJ., CONCUR.
 
CAPTION: TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY CORP. V. CHIQUITA BRANDS INTERNATL., INC.
APPEAL NOS: C-230094, C-230095, C-230107
TRIAL NOS: A-1305780, A-1400713
KEY WORDS: INSURANCE – SUMMARY JUDGMENT – DECLARATORY JUDGMENT – DOCTRINE OF INFERRED INTENT – HARMLESS ERROR – DICTA – APPELLATE REVIEW – STANDING – AGGRIEVED PARTY
SUMMARY: The trial court correctly assigned both insurers and the insured a burden to demonstrate they were entitled to summary judgment where both insurers and the insured sought a judicial determination of the scope of the insurance policies at issue and both insurers and insured moved for summary judgment in their favor.
The trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of insurers and against their insured where the insurance policies at issue limit liability coverage to accidents and not intentional acts, and the trial court properly inferred the insured’s intent to harm the plaintiffs in an underlying civil suit because the insured made payments to a terrorist organization knowing or intending those payments would be used to prepare or carry out acts of terrorism and those payments necessarily resulted in the harm to the victims of the acts of terrorism.
The trial court properly granted summary judgment though it erroneously relied on an overruled legal test for inferring an insured’s intent to injure because the error was harmless as the trial court arrived at the correct result.
Though the trial court mischaracterized an argument by the insured as raising an affirmative defense that the court ultimately determined was nonviable, the error was harmless as the trial court’s decision was otherwise correct.
The trial court properly granted summary judgment though it held that dicta had precedential effect, because the dicta was ultimately correct and any potential error from relying on the dicta was harmless.
Where the trial court granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety and awarded it the relief requested, the insurer was not an aggrieved party, and therefore, had no standing to appeal the judgment.
JUDGMENTS: AFFIRMED IN C-230094 AND C-230095; APPEAL DISMISSED IN C-230107 
JUDGES: OPINION by WINKLER, J.; BOCK, P.J., and KINSLEY, J., CONCUR.
 
CAPTION: U.S. Bank National Association v. Campbell
APPEAL NO.: C-230366
TRIAL NO.: A-1703036
KEY WORDS: Foreclosure – Appellate Jurisdiction – Final Order
SUMMARY: The trial court’s order adopting the magistrate’s decision is not a final, appealable order because it does not contain a statement of the relief to which the parties are entitled, and it is not definite enough to be susceptible to further enforcement.
JUDGMENT: Appeal Dismissed
JUDGES: Opinion by Crouse, J.; Bergeron, P.J., and Kinsley, J., concur.
 
CAPTION: STATE V. NELSON
APPEAL NO.: C-230422
TRIAL NO.: 23CRB-151
KEY WORDS: RESTITUTION – R.C. 2901.11(A)(1) – ATTORNEY FEES – CAUSATION 
SUMMARY: The trial court erred when it awarded restitution to the victim of defendant’s assault to compensate the victim for attorney fees where the victim hired a private attorney to assist the state in its criminal prosecution of defendant, because the fees were not reasonably foreseeable and therefore were not the proximate result of the offense.
JUDGMENTS: REVERSED
JUDGES: OPINION by BOCK, P.J.; BERGERON and WINKLER, JJ., CONCUR.
 
 
 
 
Requires Adobe Reader 10+ Sunscribe Now

Cincinnati Weather

Cincinnati Stocks