Case
Brief
Wulf, Appellant
v. Bravo Brio Rest. Grp., Inc., Appellees, Ohio App.3d, 142
N.E.3d 123 (2019)
Facts
Civil Appeal from Butler
County Court of Common Pleas
William Wulf, Executor
of the Estate of Roland Wulf, appealing a Trial Court summary judgment in favor
of the defendant, Bravo Brio Restaurant Group, Incorporated. The original trail
court case was a suit for damages as a result of the negligent behavior of a
Bravo Brio employee.
Roland Wulf, the Plaintiff,
suffered an injury while dining at a restaurant owned by Bravo Brio Restaurant
Group, the Defendant. At some point during dinner at Bravo Cucina
Italiana in West Chester, Ohio; Roland Wulf went to the restroom, and was
bumped into on his way there, he fell to the floor resulting in a fractured
hip. Roland Wulf did not see who bumped into him, but he asserted that a slender
woman in her twenties with brown hair and wearing a Bravo uniform apologized
for the incident and acknowledged that she worked for Bravo Brio. No one in
Roland Wulf’s dining party witnessed the incident, and Roland Wulf was later
unable to specifically identify the woman.
Issues
1.
Is specific identification of a subordinate required for negligent
liability to be established under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
2.
Does the Open and Obvious doctrine apply to dynamic hazards
3.
Was it appropriate for the Trial Court to grant a Summary
Judgement in favor of Bravo Brio?
Rule
1.
A plaintiff is not required to specifically identify an employee
for respondeat superior to apply for establishing liability.
2.
The Open and Obvious doctrine only applies to static
hazards.
3.
It was not appropriate for the trial court to grant a Summary
Judgement in favor of Bravo Brio.
Application
A negligent individual
only needs to be identified as an employee, and that the employee was negligent
while acting withing the scope of employment, but does not need to be
specifically identified for respondeat superior to apply; the Appellate Court
noted that Bravo Brio cited cases where the negligent individuals happened
to be specifically identified, but the cases cited did not establish that
negligent individuals must be specifically identified. The Appellate
Court also found no compelling reason to establish such a requirement.
The Open and Obvious
doctrine applies to static hazards, such as the building and fixtures, and the
owners would not have a duty to protect an invitee from hazards that are
self-evident, in the Trial Court’s opinion, the group of waitresses was
considered an Open and Obvious hazard, and Bravo Brio therefore had no duty to
Wulf, the Appellate Court stated that there is actually a distinction between
static and dynamic hazards, and this distinction creates two separate legal
duties; in the case of dynamic hazards, there is a duty on the part of the
owner of the premises not to conduct negligent activities.
For a summary judgement
to be appropriate, there must be no issues of material fact, the evidence must
be construed in favor of the non-moving party, and reasonable persons must
conclude that the evidence is clearly in favor of the moving party. In this case,
the Trial Court dismissed evidence the Appellate deemed appropriate and viewed
the evidence it did admit in a light adverse to the non-moving party, Wulf. For
example, the trial court deemed the waitress acknowledging that she bumped into
Wulf as inadmissible on the grounds that admissions of liability are outside
the scope of employment, the Appellate Court determined that the waitress
acknowledging that she bumped into Wulf was a factual assertion, and therefore
within the scope of employment. The Trial Court’s error is that there were in
fact issues of material fact, and that only by omitting evidence that the
Appellate deemed admissible was the trial court able to erroneously grant a
summary judgement.
Conclusion
The trial court's
judgment was reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the
appellate court’s opinion.
No comments:
Post a Comment