DocketNumber: C.A. No. 04CA008507.
Citation Numbers: 2004 Ohio 7169
Judges: EDNA J. BOYLE, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 12/29/2004
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
{¶ 3} It is undisputed that Appellant was on Appellee's property purely for his own purpose, to aid his nephew, and not for any purpose benefiting Appellee. Furthermore, it is undisputed that Appellee had never consented to Appellant's entrance onto her land. Appellee moved for summary judgment on the basis that Appellant was a trespasser to whom she owed only a limited duty of care. The trial court agreed and granted the motion, finding that no genuine issue of fact remained that would conclude that Appellee had breached her duty of care. Appellant timely appealed, asserting a single assignment of error.
{¶ 4} Appellant asserts that the trial court erred in finding, as a matter of law, that Appellee owed him only the limited duty of care extended to trespassers. Specifically, Appellant insists that when he entered Appellee's property to rescue his nephew, Appellee became obligated to warn or protect Appellant against possible hidden dangers. We disagree.
{¶ 5} An appellate court reviews an award of summary judgment de novo. Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co. (1996),
"(1) No genuine issue as to any material fact remains to be litigated; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) it appears from the evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and viewing such evidence most strongly in favor of the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that conclusion is adverse to that party." Temple v. Wean United, Inc. (1977),
{¶ 6} The party seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing the trial court of the basis for the motion and identifying portions of the record that demonstrate an absence of a genuine issue of material fact as to some essential element of the nonmoving party's claim. Dresher v. Burt (1996),
{¶ 7} To overcome summary judgment on a claim of negligence, a plaintiff must show a duty and breach of that duty as the direct and proximate cause of an injury. Chambers v. St. Mary's School (1998),
{¶ 8} For purposes of this analysis, a trespasser is one who enters the property of another, by accident or by design, without privilege or consent of the property owner. Id. at 316. The property owner owes this trespasser a duty "to refrain from willful, wanton or reckless conduct which is likely to injury him." Id. at 317; Cole v. New York CentralR.R. Co. (1948),
{¶ 9} Therefore, we agree with the trial court that, as a matter of law on the uncontested facts, reasonable minds could reach but one conclusion and that conclusion is favorable to Appellee. See Temple,
Judgment affirmed.
The Court finds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Lorain, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(E). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
Exceptions.
Whitmore, J. Concurs.
Carr, P.J. Concurs in judgment only.