Heider v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. ( 2012 )


Menu:
  • [Cite as Heider v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 
    2012-Ohio-1241
    .]
    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
    CYNTHIA SUE HEIDER, Admr.
    Plaintiff
    v.
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
    Defendant
    Case No. 2008-06521
    Judge Clark B. Weaver Sr.
    DECISION
    {¶1} On November 18, 2010, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment
    pursuant to Civ.R. 56(B). With leave of court, plaintiff filed a response on December 20,
    2010. The parties were subsequently granted leave to file supplemental memoranda.
    Plaintiff’s May 13, 2011 motion to strike defendant’s May 6, 2011 notice of supplemental
    authority is DENIED.1
    {¶2} Civ.R. 56(C) states, in part, as follows:
    {¶3} “Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings,
    depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of
    evidence, and written stipulations of fact, if any, timely filed in the action, show that
    there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to
    judgment as a matter of law. No evidence or stipulation may be considered except as
    stated in this rule. A summary judgment shall not be rendered unless it appears from
    the evidence or stipulation, and only from the evidence or stipulation, that reasonable
    Case No. 2008-06521                            -2-                                         ENTRY
    minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the party
    against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that party being entitled to
    have the evidence or stipulation construed most strongly in the party’s favor.” See also
    Gilbert v. Summit Cty., 
    104 Ohio St.3d 660
    , 
    2004-Ohio-7108
    , citing Temple v. Wean
    United, Inc. (1977), 
    50 Ohio St.2d 317
    .
    {¶4} Plaintiff’s claims arise from a fatal accident that occurred on November 14,
    2006. On that date, Dr. Matthew Heider was driving his Chevy Suburban southbound
    on Eastown Road, approaching the intersection with Allentown Road (State Route (SR)
    81) in Lima, Ohio. Dr. Heider’s daughter, Rachel, was a passenger in the vehicle. At
    the same time, Ronald Funk was approaching the intersection from the east, operating
    a tanker truck owned by Ottawa Oil Company that was fully loaded with gasoline. The
    tanker truck collided with Dr. Heider’s vehicle, causing the truck to roll onto its side and
    explode.   Both Funk and Rachel Heider were injured but were able to escape the
    conflagration; Dr. Heider died at the scene.
    {¶5} Plaintiff, Cynthia Heider, brings this action, both individually and on behalf of
    Dr. Heider’s estate, alleging that defendant Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT)
    was negligent in the design, installation, and maintenance of the traffic control light at
    the intersection of Eastown and SR 81 and that such negligence was the proximate
    cause of the fatal accident.
    {¶6} Under the doctrine of res judicata, “[a] valid, final judgment rendered upon
    the merits bars all subsequent actions based upon any claim arising out of the
    transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action.” Grava v.
    Parkman Twp., 
    73 Ohio St.3d 379
    , 
    1995-Ohio-331
    , syllabus. “In Ohio, ‘[t]he doctrine of
    res judicata encompasses the two related concepts of claim preclusion * * * and issue
    preclusion, also known as collateral estoppel.’”           State ex rel. Davis v. Pub. Emps.
    1
    On September 15, 2011, plaintiff notified the court that the Supreme Court of Ohio had declined
    Case No. 2008-06521                                   -3-                           ENTRY
    Retirement Bd., 
    120 Ohio St.3d 386
    , 
    2008-Ohio-6254
    , ¶27, quoting O'Nesti v. DeBartolo
    Realty Corp., 
    113 Ohio St.3d 59
    , 
    2007-Ohio-1102
    , ¶6.               “‘[I]ssue preclusion, [or]
    collateral estoppel, holds that a fact or a point that was actually and directly at issue in a
    previous action, and was passed upon and determined by a court of competent
    jurisdiction, may not be drawn into question in a subsequent action between the same
    parties or their privies, whether the cause of action in the two actions be identical or
    different.’” 
    Id.,
     quoting Ft. Frye Teachers Assn., OEA/NEA v. State Emp. Relations Bd.,
    
    81 Ohio St.3d 392
    , 395, 
    1998-Ohio-435
    . “‘While the merger and bar aspects of res
    judicata have the effect of precluding the relitigation of the same cause of action, the
    collateral estoppel aspect precludes the relitigation, in a second action, of an issue that
    had been actually and necessarily litigated and determined in a prior action that was
    based on a different cause of action.’” 
    Id.
    {¶7} Defendant has attached to its motion a copy of a judgment entry in the
    related action in the Allen County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. CV 2008 0812,
    which addressed plaintiff’s claims against a variety of defendants, including Funk,
    Ottawa Oil, and companies responsible for programing and installing the traffic control
    lights at the intersection. Heider v. Siemens, Allen App. No. 1-10-66, 
    2011-Ohio-901
    ,
    ¶3. The common pleas court subsequently ruled in favor of Funk and Ottawa Oil on
    their motions for summary judgment. Id. at ¶24-25. All claims against other defendants
    were either dismissed or settled. (Defendant’s Exhibit I.)
    {¶8} The Third District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision finding
    that no questions of fact existed concerning whether the traffic light malfunctioned and
    whether Dr. Heider ran the red light. Id. at ¶32. The court of appeals noted “every
    available accident witness testified that Dr. Heider entered the intersection on a red
    light.” Id. Although plaintiff presented the testimony of several individuals who “came
    jurisdiction of the appeal in the connected action.
    Case No. 2008-06521                        -4-                                    ENTRY
    forward after the accident with accounts of how the traffic light at the intersection
    allegedly malfunctioned, none of these individuals actually witnessed the accident.” Id.
    The court of appeals determined that “testimony of alleged prior light malfunctions
    offered by the estate is irrelevant for purposes of showing a traffic light malfunction on
    the night of the accident. * * * This is especially true here where all the direct evidence
    demonstrates that the traffic light was functioning correctly on the night of the accident.”
    (Emphasis in original.) Id. at ¶38.
    {¶9} In her response to defendant’s motion, plaintiff asserts that the common
    pleas court failed to correctly address all of the factual and legal issues. However, the
    doctrine of res judicata and the adjunct principle of collateral estoppel “‘applies to
    extinguish a claim by the plaintiff against the defendant even though the plaintiff is
    prepared in the second action (1) To present evidence or grounds or theories of the
    case not presented in the first action, or (2) To seek remedies or forms of relief not
    demanded in the first action.’” Grava, supra, at 383, quoting 1 Restatement of the Law
    2d, Judgments (1982) 209, Section 25.
    {¶10} With regard to plaintiff’s argument that collateral estoppel does not apply in
    this case insamuch as ODOT was not a party to the connected action, the Supreme
    Court of Ohio has held that collateral estoppel applies “when the fact or issue ‘(1) was
    actually and directly litigated in the prior action, (2) was passed upon and determined by
    a court of competent jurisdiction, and (3) when the party against whom collateral
    estoppel is asserted was a party [or] in privity with a party to the prior action.’”
    (Emphasis added.) New Winchester Gardens, Ltd. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Revision, 
    80 Ohio St.3d 36
    , 41, 
    1997-Ohio-360
    , overruled on other grounds, quoting Thompson v.
    Wing, 
    70 Ohio St.3d 176
    , 183, 
    1994-Ohio-358
    . See Schroyer v. Frankel (C.A.6, 1999),
    
    197 F.3d 1170
    , 1178 (finding that Ohio law allows the use of non-mutual defensive
    collateral estoppel if the plaintiff was afforded “a fair opportunity to fully litigate the
    issue”).
    Case No. 2008-06521                         -5-                                    ENTRY
    {¶11} Upon review, the court finds that the facts alleged in plaintiff’s complaint
    arise out of the occurrence that was the subject matter of the case she filed in the Allen
    County Court of Common Pleas. A court of competent jurisdiction determined that Dr.
    Heider’s negligence in running the red light was the sole proximate cause of the
    accident and that the traffic light was functioning correctly on the night of the accident.
    Accordingly, the court finds that the doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes re-litigation
    of those issues.    Consequently, there are no genuine issues of material fact and
    defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Defendant’s motion for summary
    judgment shall be granted.
    Case No. 2008-06521                        -6-                                         ENTRY
    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
    CYNTHIA SUE HEIDER, Admr.
    Plaintiff
    v.
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
    Defendant
    Case No. 2008-06521
    Judge Clark B. Weaver Sr.
    JUDGMENT ENTRY
    {¶12} A non-oral hearing was conducted in this case upon defendant’s motion for
    summary judgment.       For the reasons set forth in the decision filed concurrently
    herewith, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and judgment is
    rendered in favor of defendant. Court costs are assessed against plaintiff. The clerk
    shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal.
    _____________________________________
    CLARK B. WEAVER SR.
    Judge
    Case No. 2008-06521               -7-                     ENTRY
    cc:
    Emily M. Simmons                   Marvin A. Robon
    Eric A. Walker                     Robert E. Davis
    Assistant Attorneys General        1701 Woodlands Drive
    150 East Gay Street, 18th Floor    Maumee, Ohio 43537
    Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130
    AMR/dms
    Filed January 24, 2012
    To S.C. reporter March 23, 2012
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2008-06521

Judges: Weaver

Filed Date: 1/24/2012

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014