Tarantino v. Cavaliers Operating Co., L.L.C. ( 2012 )

[Cite as Tarantino v. Cavaliers Operating Co., L.L.C., 2012-Ohio-2636.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 97766
DONALD TARANTINO
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
vs.
CAVALIERS OPERATING CO., LLC
DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
JUDGMENT:
REVERSED AND REMANDED
Civil Appeal from the
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
Case No. CV-745214
BEFORE: Rocco, J., Stewart, P.J., and Boyle, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: June 14, 2012
-i-
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Patrick F. Roche
Davis & Young
1200 Fifth Third Center
600 Superior Avenue, E.
Cleveland, Ohio 44114-2654
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Charles W. Zepp
Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur
1700 Huntington Building
925 Euclid Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44115-1483
KENNETH A. ROCCO, J.:
{¶1} In this appeal assigned to the accelerated calendar pursuant to App.R. 11.1
and Loc.App.R. 11.1, plaintiff-appellant Donald Tarantino appeals from the trial court
order that awarded summary judgment on Tarantino’s personal injury claim to
defendant-appellee Cavaliers Operating Co., LLC (referred to in the plural as the “Cavs”).
{¶2} The purpose of an accelerated appeal is to allow this court to render a brief
and conclusory opinion. Crawford v. Eastland Shopping Mall Assn., 11 Ohio App.3d
158, 463 N.E.2d 655 (1st Dist. 1983); App.R. 11.1(E).
{¶3} Tarantino presents two assignments of error. In his first, he claims summary
judgment for the Cavs was unwarranted on the evidence submitted to the trial court. In
his second, Tarantino argues the trial court should have granted his motion for partial
summary judgment on the issue of liability.
{¶4} Upon a review of the record, this court finds that Tarantino’s first assignment
of error has merit. This court, however, lacks jurisdiction to consider his second
assignment of error. Consequently, the trial court’s order is reversed and this case is
remanded for further proceedings.
{¶5} According to Tarantino’s complaint, he was injured while attending a Cavs
basketball game on March 19, 2009. Tarantino alleged the Cavs’ mascot, “Moondog,”
inadvertently struck Tarantino’s right hand, causing Tarantino to sustain a “ruptured
flexor digitorum profundus tendon.”
{¶6} On April 19, 2011, after the Cavs filed an answer that denied the pertinent
allegations of Tarantino’s complaint, the trial court issued a case management schedule.
The schedule stated Tarantino’s expert report was “due by 7/15/11,” and that “all
dispositive motions [were] due no later than 9/23/11.” Subsequently, however, upon the
parties’ separate motions, the trial court granted the parties an enlargement of time until
September 29, 2011 to file their dispositive motions.
{¶7} The Cavs timely filed their motion for summary judgment and supported it
with a copy of Tarantino’s deposition testimony. In his deposition, Tarantino explained
the circumstances surrounding the injury in the following manner.
{¶8} Tarantino had offered a paper cutout figure to “Moondog” so that the cutout
could be included in a photograph his friend was taking of the mascot. “Moondog” had
“grabbed” the figure from Tarantino’s hand, and, in so doing, “grabbed [Tarantino’s]
finger inadvertently and twisted [the] finger back * * *.” Tarantino acknowledged he
waited four days to obtain medical treatment for the injury.
{¶9} The Cavs argued Tarantino could not sustain his cause of action for
negligence because his injury was not foreseeable and because he could not establish
causation. With respect to the latter argument, the Cavs pointed out that, while Tarantino
had submitted his medical records to the Cavs, he had never filed an expert report with
the trial court.
{¶10} Tarantino also timely filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the
issue of liability. His motion was supported by two affidavits and a copy of
“Moondog’s” deposition transcript. Therein, the mascot testified that he had no memory
of the incident.
{¶11} After filing his motion for partial summary judgment, Tarantino filed a brief
in opposition to the Cavs’ motion for summary judgment. He attached copies of
documents he sent to the Cavs pursuant to their discovery requests, none of which was an
affidavit containing an expert report. One of the documents, however, was a letter to
Tarantino’s attorneys from his treating physician.
{¶12} On November 23, 2011, the trial court denied Tarantino’s partial motion for
summary judgment. On December 1, 2011, the trial court granted summary judgment to
the Cavs on Tarantino’s complaint.
{¶13} Tarantino filed this appeal from the latter order.
{¶14} In his first assignment of error, Tarantino asserts the evidence submitted to
the trial court demonstrated summary judgment for the Cavs on his negligence claim was
unwarranted.1 This court agrees.
{¶15} Summary judgment is a procedural device used to end litigation only in cases
in which there are no issues that require a trial. Deutsch v. Birk, 189 Ohio App.3d 129,
2010-Ohio-3564, 937 N.E.2d 638, ¶6 (12th Dist.). Pursuant to Civ.R. 56(C), summary
judgment is proper when, construing the evidence most strongly in the nonmoving party’s
favor, (1) there are no genuine issues of material fact, (2) the moving party is entitled to
1Tarantino has abandoned the allegation in his complaint that the mascot’s
conduct was “willful, wanton and/or reckless.”
judgment as a matter of law, and (3) reasonable minds can come only to a conclusion
adverse to the nonmoving party.
{¶16} This court reviews a trial court’s decision on summary judgment de novo.
Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 105, 671 N.E.2d 241 (1996). The trial
court’s decision is reviewed independently, without any deference to the court’s
judgment. Burgess v. Tackas, 125 Ohio App.3d 294, 295, 708 N.E.2d 285 (8th Dist.
1998).
{¶17} Negligence claims require the showing of a duty owed, a breach of that duty,
and an injury proximately caused by the breach. Wallace v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce, 96
Ohio St.3d 266, 2002-Ohio-4210, 773 N.E.2d 1018, ¶ 22. “The existence of a duty is
fundamental to establishing actionable negligence, without which there is no legal
liability.” Adelman v. Timman, 117 Ohio App.3d 544, 549, 690 N.E.2d 1332 (8th Dist.
1997). The determination of whether a duty exists is a question of law. Mussivand v.
David, 45 Ohio St.3d 314, 318, 544 N.E.2d 265 (1989). In the absence of a duty, the
negligence action fails. Menifee v. Ohio Welding Prods., Inc., 15 Ohio St.3d 75, 472
N.E.2d 707 (1984).
{¶18} Whether a duty exists depends largely on the foreseeability of the injury to
one in the plaintiff’s position. When the injured person comes within the circle of those
to whom injury may reasonably be anticipated, the defendant owes him a duty of care.
Gedeon v. E. Ohio Gas Co., 128 Ohio St. 335, 338 147 N.E. 757 (1934). Foreseeability
of harm thus depends on the defendant’s knowledge. Menifee.
{¶19} In this case, the evidence submitted to the trial court was sufficient to
establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact with respect to the existence of
a duty on the Cavs’ part. Although the Cavs’ mascot testified he previously had never
injured anyone attending a Cavs game; “Moondog” further testified that he did not
remember the incident involving Tarantino. One of the photographs Tarantino submitted
to the trial court, however, showed “Moondog” posing with a paper cut-out figure.
{¶20} “Moondog” also testified that, if such an incident had occurred, it would
“stand out” in his mind. Tarantino’s friends who attended the game with him, however,
averred that Tarantino told them soon after the photo was taken that he sustained an injury
to his hand because of the mascot’s inadvertent grab for the figure.
{¶21} Tarantino thus presented evidence to raise an issue of fact concerning the
foreseeability of such an injury as he sustained. Consequently, the record contains
evidence that the Cavs may have breached their duty of care toward him. Booze v.
Amans, 8th Dist. No. 70664, 1997 WL 150124 (Mar. 27, 1997); compare Anderson v.
Indian Valley Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 5th Dist. Nos. 1998AP122-124, 1999 WL 175218(Mar. 22, 1999).
{¶22} In addition, the record contains evidence sufficient to raise a genuine issue of
material fact with respect to the proximate cause of Tarantino’s “ruptured flexor
digitorum profundus tendon” in his right hand. Although the letter written by
Tarantino’s treating physician is awkwardly phrased for purposes of Civ.R. 56(E),
nevertheless, Loc.R. 21.1(C) of The Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County,
General Division grants the trial court discretion to consider whether such a letter satisfies
“the requirements of a written report” for discovery purposes. Lowe v. Univ. Hosps. of
Cleveland, 8th Dist. No. 80341, 2002-Ohio-4084.
{¶23} The trial court in this case provided no rationale for its decision that the Cavs
were entitled to summary judgment on Tarantino’s claim. Because Civ.R. 56(C) requires
evidence to be considered in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and because
the physician’s letter indicates that the incident “was to a reasonable degree of medical
certainty a direct cause of [Tarantino’s] tendon injury,” this court’s de novo review of the
record leads to the conclusion that summary judgment for the Cavs was inappropriate.
Id.; compare Schura v. Marymount Hosp., 8th Dist. No. 94359, 2010-Ohio-5246, ¶ 28-29.
{¶24} Consequently, Tarantino’s first assignment of error is sustained.
{¶25} This court lacks jurisdiction to review his second assignment of error. R.C.
2505.02.
{¶26} The trial court’s order granting summary judgment to the Cavs on
Tarantino’s claim is reversed, and this case is remanded for further proceedings. It is
ordered that appellant recover from appellee costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said 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.
_____________________________________
KENNETH A. ROCCO, JUDGE
MELODY J. STEWART, P.J., and
MARY J. BOYLE, J., CONCUR