Dozier v. Pymatuning State Park , 2012 Ohio 5275 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as Dozier v. Pymatuning State Park, 
    2012-Ohio-5275
    .]
    Court of Claims of Ohio
    The Ohio Judicial Center
    65 South Front Street, Third Floor
    Columbus, OH 43215
    614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263
    www.cco.state.oh.us
    SILAS DOZIER, JR.
    Plaintiff
    v.
    PYMATUNING STATE PARK
    Defendant
    Case No. 2012-02895-AD
    Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert
    MEMORANDUM DECISION
    {¶1}    On Labor Day weekend in 2011, plaintiff, Silas Dozier, Jr., was camping at
    defendant, Pymatuning State Park (“Pymatuning”), while a “power outage/or surge”
    occurred. Plaintiff related a couple of weeks later when he was winterizing his camper
    he discovered that none of the electronic appliances in his camper were operational.
    Plaintiff contacted Tim’s RV which determined that a bad convertor had caused
    plaintiff’s problem. When plaintiff queried the repairman concerning how the damage to
    the convertor occurred, the repairmen stated it was “likely caused by a power surge.”
    {¶2}    Plaintiff asserted he believes Pymatuning is responsible for the damage
    caused to his convertor due to their negligent conduct. Accordingly, on March 21, 2012,
    plaintiff filed his complaint seeking damages in the amount of $509.86, the cost of a new
    convertor and the related labor charges to install it in his camper. On March 29, 2012,
    plaintiff submitted the $25.00 filing fee.
    {¶3}    Defendant denied any liability in this matter asserting plaintiff has not
    submitted any evidence to prove that defendant breached any duty toward plaintiff.
    Defendant acknowledged that plaintiff was an invitee on its premises because he rented
    a campsite from defendant. Accordingly, defendant owed plaintiff a duty to exercise
    reasonable care and warn plaintiff of any latent hazards or concealed defects in the
    park. Defendant conducted an investigation of the campsite in question, 131, and found
    the electrical box was in proper working order. “In fact, no other campsites reported
    electrical issues from the night in question, and seven other campers used site 131 after
    plaintiff and no electrical problems were reported.”
    {¶4}   While defendant acknowledged that a power outage did occur on
    September 3, 2011, it occurred on power lines not owned or operated by defendant. No
    problems were detected on electrical equipment owned or operated by defendant.
    Furthermore, defendant asserted it had no duty to warn plaintiff of a power outage
    which defendant could not foresee. Finally, defendant “cannot be an insurer against all
    forms of risk.”
    {¶5}   Plaintiff filed a response to defendant’s investigation report.       Plaintiff
    attached a statement from Terry Snyder which seems to attribute plaintiff’s convertor
    damage to the power outage. However, plaintiff did not identify who Terry Snyder is
    and the expertise he possesses to make such a conclusory statement.
    {¶6}   Plaintiff has the burden of proving his property damage was caused by a
    power surge, outage, or an electrical malfunction attributable to negligent acts or
    omissions on the part of defendant. Pryor v. Southern Ohio Correctional Facility , 97-
    03026-AD, jud (1997).
    {¶7}   In order for plaintiff to prevail upon his claim of negligence, he must prove,
    by a preponderance of the evidence, that defendant owed him a duty, that it breached
    that duty, and that the breach proximately caused his injuries. Armstrong v. Best Buy
    Company, Inc., 
    99 Ohio St. 3d 79
    , 
    2003-Ohio-2573
    ,
    788 N.E. 2d 1088
    , ¶8 citing Menifee
    v. Ohio Welding Products, Inc., 
    15 Ohio St. 3d 75
    , 77, 
    472 N.E. 2d 707
     (1984). Plaintiff
    claimed his electrical devices were damaged by a power surge or power outage caused
    by defendant. As a necessary element of his particular claim, plaintiff was required to
    prove proximate cause of his damage by a preponderance of the evidence. See e.g.,
    Stinson v. England, 
    69 Ohio St. 3d 451
    , 
    1994-Ohio-35
    , 
    633 N.E. 2d 532
    . This court, as
    trier of fact, determines questions of proximate causation. Shinaver v. Szymanski, 
    14 Ohio St. 3d 51
    , 
    471 N.E. 2d 477
     (1984).
    {¶8}   “If an injury is the natural and probable consequence of a negligent act
    and it is such as should have been foreseen in the light of all the attending
    circumstances, the injury is then the proximate result of the negligence.       It is not
    necessary that the defendant should have anticipated the particular injury.         It is
    sufficient that his act is likely to result in an injury to someone.” Cascone v. Herb Kay
    Co., 
    6 Ohio St. 3d 155
    , 160, 
    451 N.E. 2d 815
     (1983), quoting Neff Lumber Co. v. First
    National Bank of St. Clairsville, Admr., 
    122 Ohio St. 302
    , 309, 
    171 N.E. 327
     (1930). In a
    situation such as the instant claim, expert testimony is required regarding the issue of
    causation and that testimony must be expressed in terms of probability. Stinson, at
    454. In the case at bar, nothing in the statement submitted from the repairman with
    Tim’s RV or the statement of Terry Snyder provides evidence that the damage
    attributable to plaintiff’s convertor was the result of any negligence on the part of
    defendant.
    {¶9}   In order to recover against a defendant in a tort action, plaintiff must
    produce evidence which furnishes a reasonable basis for sustaining his claim. If his
    evidence furnishes a basis for only a guess, among different possibilities, as to any
    essential issue in the case, he fails to sustain the burden as to such issue. Landon v.
    Lee Motors, Inc., 
    161 Ohio St. 82
    , 
    118 N.E. 2d 147
     (1954).
    {¶10} Plaintiff has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he
    sustained any loss as the result of negligence on the part of defendant.
    Court of Claims of Ohio
    The Ohio Judicial Center
    65 South Front Street, Third Floor
    Columbus, OH 43215
    614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263
    www.cco.state.oh.us
    SILAS DOZIER, JR.
    Plaintiff
    v.
    PYMATUNING STATE PARK
    Defendant
    Case No. 2012-02895-AD
    Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert
    ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATION
    Having considered all the evidence in the claim file and, for the reasons set forth
    in the memorandum decision filed concurrently herewith, judgment is rendered in favor
    of defendant. Court costs are assessed against plaintiff.
    ________________________________
    DANIEL R. BORCHERT
    Deputy Clerk
    Entry cc:
    Silas Dozier, Jr.                                Charles G. Rowan
    6158 Shaffer Road N.W.                           Department of Natural Resources
    Warren, Ohio 44481                               2045 Morse Road, D-3
    Columbus, Ohio 43229-6693
    DRB/laa
    Filed 7/31/12
    sent to S.C. Reporter 11/14/12
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2012-02895-AD

Citation Numbers: 2012 Ohio 5275

Judges: Borchert

Filed Date: 7/31/2012

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014