[Cite as Heider v. Siemens, 2011-Ohio-901.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT ALLEN COUNTY __________________________________________________________________
CYNTHIA SUE HEIDER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE CASE NO. 1-10-66 ESTATE OF MATTHEW J. HEIDER, ET AL.,
PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,
v.
SIEMENS, AG, ET AL., OPINION
DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
__________________________________________________________________
Appeal from Allen County Common Pleas Court Trial Court No. CV2008-0812
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: February 28, 2011
__________________________________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
Marvin A. Robon for Appellant
Larry E. Yunker II for Appellant
Brian D. Sullivan for Appellee, U.S. Utility Contractor Company, Inc.
Brian L. Wildermuth for Appellees, Ottawa Oil Company and Ronald E. Funk
Martin W. Williams for Appellee, Ronald E. Funk Case No. 1-10-66
PRESTON, J.
{¶1} Plaintiffs-appellants, Cynthia Sue Heider, individually and as
administrator of the Estate of Matthew J. Heider, and Cynthia Sue Heider, as
parent, natural guardian, and next friend of Rachel E. Heider (“Rachel”), a minor,
(collectively “the estate”) appeal the Allen County Court of Common Pleas’ grant
of summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees Ottawa Oil Company, Inc.
(“Ottawa Oil”), Ronald Funk (“Funk”), and US Utility Contractor Company, Inc.
(“US Utility”). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
{¶2} On November 14, 2006 around 8:30 p.m., Dr. Matthew J. Heider (“Dr.
Heider”) was driving a Chevy Suburban southbound on Eastown Road in
American Township, Allen County, Ohio approaching the intersection of Eastown
and Allentown Roads (State Route 81). (Complaint, Doc. No. 1, ¶24); (Collision
Reconstruction Report, Stechschulte Ex. D). Dr. Heider’s daughter, Rachel, was a
passenger in the vehicle. (Complaint, Doc. No. 1 at ¶5). At the same time, Funk
was operating a Mack tractor-tanker trailer loaded with 8,500 gallons of gasoline
westbound on Allentown Road (State Route 81), approaching the same
intersection. (Id. at ¶25). The Mack tractor-tanker trailer collided with Dr.
Heider’s Suburban causing the tractor-tanker trailer to roll onto its side, the
gasoline to ignite, and the tanker trailer to explode, with Funk being injured but
escaping shortly prior to the explosion. (Id. at ¶27). As a result of the collision,
Dr. Heider’s Suburban was pushed approximately one hundred (100) feet
2 Case No. 1-10-66
westbound on Allentown Road, causing minor injuries to Rachel. (Id. at ¶¶31, 37).
Dr. Heider died as a result of the crash and subsequent fire. (Id.).
{¶3} On June 2, 2008, the estate filed a wrongful death action in the Allen
County Court of Common Pleas against Siemens, AG; Siemens Corporation;
Siemens Energy and Automation, Inc.; DGL Consulting Engineers, LLC, d/b/a
DGL Consulting Engineers; US Utility; Allen County, Ohio; American Township,
Ohio; Funk; Ottawa Oil; Acme Leasing Co.; and John Does one, two, three, four,
five, and six alleging negligence in the design, manufacture and/or installation of
the intersection and/or traffic control device (Count One); negligent maintenance
of the intersection and/or traffic light (Count Two); negligence by Funk (Count
Three); negligence and vicarious liability by Ottawa Oil (Count Four); negligence
of Acme Leasing (Count Five); and strict liability against Siemens, DGL
Consulting, US Utility and/or John Doe as manufacturers and/or suppliers of the
traffic control device. (Count Six). (Doc. No. 1).
{¶4} On June 16, 2008, the estate filed a motion to stay the proceedings
until a related case that the estate had filed in the Ohio Court of Claims, Heider v.
Dept. of Transportation, Case No.: C2008-06521, was fully adjudicated. (Doc.
No. 12). On June 24, 2008, the trial court granted the motion. (Doc. No. 16).
However, on June 25, 2008, Funk filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion
to stay, and on July 3, 2008, the trial court set the matter for hearing upon
reconsideration. (Doc. Nos. 16, 26).
3 Case No. 1-10-66
{¶5} On June 30, 2008, DGL Consulting Engineers and Allen County filed
answers. (Doc. Nos. 19, 21). On July 1 and 2, 2008, Acme and Siemens,
respectively, filed motions for an extension to move, plead, or otherwise answer.
(Doc. Nos. 22-23). The trial court granted the extensions on July 2-3, 2008. (Doc.
Nos. 24-25).
{¶6} On July 15, 2008, the trial court held a hearing on the estate’s motion
to stay proceedings. (Doc. No. 35). Following the hearing, the trial court lifted its
previously imposed stay of proceedings effective July 15, 2008 and ordered the
defendants to move or otherwise plead within thirty (30) days. (Id.).
{¶7} On July 21, 2008, American Township filed its answer. (Doc. No. 36).
On July 25, 2008, defendants Acme Leasing, Ottawa Oil, and Funk filed answers.
(Doc. Nos. 42, 44-45). Funk also filed a counterclaim against the estate for the
injuries he sustained as a result of the accident. (Doc. No. 45). On August 5, 2008,
the estate filed an answer to Funk’s counterclaim. (Doc. No. 50).
{¶8} On August 4, 2008, Siemens Energy and Automation, Inc. filed its
answer. (Doc. No. 52). On August 14, 2008, Siemens AG and Siemens Corp.
filed an unopposed second motion for extension of time to move, plead, or
otherwise answer, which the trial court granted. (Doc. Nos. 53, 56).
{¶9} On September 11, 2008, Siemens AG and Siemens Corp. filed
motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and want of service of process.
(Doc. Nos. 62, 64).
4 Case No. 1-10-66
{¶10} On September 29, 2008, US Utility filed a motion for leave to file
answer Instanter on the basis that it did not know the trial court’s previously
ordered stay of proceedings had been lifted, which motion the trial court granted.
(Doc. Nos. 66, 68). US Utility filed its answer on September 30, 2008. (Doc. No.
69).
{¶11} On October 29, 2008, the trial court dismissed Siemens AG and
Siemens Corp. from the case with prejudice. (Doc. No. 76).
{¶12} On November 13, 2008, the estate filed its first amended complaint
against the same defendants as in its original complaint and, additionally, Eagle
Traffic Systems (a business unit of Siemens Energy and Automation, Inc.),
Baldwin and Sours, Inc., the Shelly Company, Oldcastle, Inc., Eberle Design, Inc.,
and Athens Technical Specialists, Inc. (Doc. No. 83).
{¶13} On November 13, 2008, the trial court issued a nunc pro tunc order
rescinding its order dismissing Siemens AG and Siemens Corp. with prejudice and
granting the estate through November 18, 2008 to respond to the motions. (Doc.
No. 85).
{¶14} On November 19, 2008, the estate filed a Civ. R. 41(A) notice of
voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the claims against defendants Siemens
AG, Siemens Corp., DGL Consulting Engineers, American Township, and US
Utility Contractor Company. (Doc. No. 87).
5 Case No. 1-10-66
{¶15} On November 24, 2008, Funk filed an answer to the first amended
complaint and filed a counterclaim against the estate. (Doc. No. 93). That same
day, Ottawa Oil filed an answer to the amended complaint as well. (Doc. No. 94).
Thereafter, the remaining defendants filed answers to the amended complaint.
(Doc. Nos. 95-96, 98-101, 103). On December 3, 2008, the estate filed its answer
to Funk’s counterclaim. (Doc. No. 97).
{¶16} A jury trial was scheduled for May 17, 2010 as the matter proceeded
to discovery. (Doc. No. 113).
{¶17} On January 21, 2009, Acme Leasing filed a motion for summary
judgment. (Doc. No. 112). On February 17, 2009, the estate filed a motion for
extension of six (6) months to file its memorandum in opposition, which the trial
court partially granted giving the estate until April 17, 2009 to respond. (Doc. Nos.
124, 133). That same day, the estate filed a Civ.R 41(A) dismissal of its claims
against Eagle Traffic Control and Oldcastle, Inc. without prejudice. (Doc. No.
125-26).
{¶18} On April 10th, July 20th, and November 12th, of 2009, respectively,
the estate filed Civ.R. 41(A) dismissals of its claims against Acme Leasing Co.,
Athens Technical Specialists, Inc., and Eberle Design, Inc. without prejudice.
(Doc. Nos. 140, 194, 235). On July 21, 2009, the estate filed a Civ.R. 41(A)
dismissal of count two and count six of its amended complaint against the Shelly
Company. (Doc. No. 196).
6 Case No. 1-10-66
{¶19} On November 18, 2009, the estate re-filed its civil complaint against
US Utility in the Wood County Court of Common Pleas asserting two causes of
action. In its first cause of action, the estate alleged that US Utility was negligent
in programing, downloading software, and/or installing the traffic control device.
(Wood County Complaint). In its second cause of action, the estate alleged that
US Utility breached ODOT regulations and standards when it installed the traffic
signal. (Id.). On December 2, 2009, US Utility filed a motion to dismiss or, in the
alternative, to transfer venue to Allen County. On January 27, 2010, the Wood
County Court of Common Pleas granted the motion to transfer the case to Allen
County. On March 9, 2010, the Allen County Court of Common Pleas ordered
that the case be consolidated with the case before it, Heider v. Siemens, AG, et al.,
Case No. CV 2008-0812.
{¶20} On December 18, 2009, Allen County filed a motion for summary
judgment. (Doc. No. 270). On January 4, 2010, the estate filed a motion for an
extension to respond to the motion for summary judgment, which the trial court
granted. (Doc. Nos. 277, 279). On January 14, 2010, Baldwin and Sours, Inc.
filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 284). On January 15, 2010,
Ottawa Oil and Funk filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 285).
{¶21} On February 22, 2010, the Estate filed a Civ.R. 41(A) dismissal of its
claims against Allen County without prejudice. (Doc. No. 315). On February 23,
2010, the estate filed its memorandum in opposition to Ottawa Oil and Funk’s
7 Case No. 1-10-66
motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 317). On March 5, 2010, Ottawa Oil
and Funk filed its reply in support of the motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No.
319).
{¶22} On March 4, 2010, Baldwin and Sours, Inc. filed a request for
submission of its summary judgment motion. (Doc. No. 318). On March 8, 2010,
the estate filed a Civ.R. 41(A) dismissal of its claims against Baldwin and Sours,
Inc. without prejudice. (Doc. No. 320).
{¶23} On March 15, 2010, US Utility filed a motion for summary
judgment. (Doc. No. 325). On March 25, 2010, the estate filed a Civ.R. 41(A)
notice of dismissal of its claims against US Utility related to programing of the
signal box and/or controller, downloading software into the controller,
programming the controller, and/or negligence associated with any of these
actions (Count One). (Doc. No. 329). On March 29, 2010, the estate filed its
memorandum in opposition to US Utility’s motion for summary judgment on the
remaining claims. (Doc. No. 330).
{¶24} On March 30, 2010, the trial court granted Ottawa Oil and Funk’s
motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 331). The trial court also ruled in favor
of Funk on his counterclaim for damages; however, the trial court never
determined the amount of Funk’s damages. (Id.). On April 22, 2010, the estate
filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor
of Ottawa Oil and Funk. (Doc. No. 337). This case was assigned appellate case
8 Case No. 1-10-66
no. 1-10-30 but was ultimately dismissed for lack of a final appealable order on
May 21, 2010. (Doc. No. 348).
{¶25} On May 5, 2010, the trial court granted US Utility’s motion for
summary judgment. (Doc. No. 344). On May 13, 2010, the estate filed a notice of
appeal. (Doc. No. 345). This case was assigned appellate case no. 1-10-37 but
was also dismissed for lack of a final appealable order on June 3, 2010. (Doc. No.
350).
{¶26} On September 7, 2010, the trial court held a hearing to determine the
amount of Funk’s damages for the injuries he sustained as a result of the accident.
(Doc. No. 360). After hearing the evidence, the trial court granted judgment in
favor of Funk in the amount of $122,301.52. (Id.). On September 16, 2010, the
trial court stayed execution of the judgment pending appeal. (Doc. No. 361).
{¶27} On October 4, 2010, the estate filed its notice of appeal. (Doc. No.
362). The estate now appeals raising three assignments of error.1 For clarity of
analysis, we elect to combine the estate’s first and second assignments of error for
our review.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. I
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN EVIDENCE OF A DEFECTIVE TRAFFIC SIGNAL LIGHT AND EVIDENCE OF CAUSE OF DEFECT WAS TAKEN FROM THE TRIER OF FACT.
1 The Estate raises three “Issues for Review” on appeal. Although appellants were required to set forth “Assignments of Error” by App.R. 16(A)(3) and this Court has discretion to disregard appellants’ arguments under App.R. 12(A)(2), we will, in the interests of justice, analyze the three “Issues for Review” as assignments of error.
9 Case No. 1-10-66
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. II
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED WHEN IT IGNORED THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS PRESENTED SHOWING THAT TRUCK DRIVER FUNK BREACHED HIS DUTY OWED TO DR. HEIDER WHEN FUNK FAILED TO EXERCISE ORDINARY CARE AT THE INTERSECTION.
{¶28} In its first assignment of error, the estate argues that circumstantial
evidence of the traffic light’s malfunctions in the weeks and months leading up to
the accident creates a question of fact as to whether the traffic light malfunctioned
on the date of the accident. In addition, the estate argues that there is a question of
fact concerning whether the improper grounding of the traffic signal box could
have caused the types of signal problems that were reported.
{¶29} In its second assignment of error, the estate argues that there is a
question of fact as to whether the truck driver, Funk, breached his duty of ordinary
care to yield to Dr. Heider who may have been clearing the intersection as Funk
was entering the intersection. The estate further argues that there is a disputed
question of fact concerning whether or not Dr. Heider entered the intersection on a
red light.
{¶30} This Court reviews a grant or denial of summary judgment pursuant
to Civ.R. 56(C) de novo. Wampler v. Higgins (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 111, 127, 752
N.E.2d 962, citing Doe v. Shaffer (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 388, 390, 738 N.E.2d
1243, citing Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co. (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 105, 671
N.E.2d 241. To prevail under Civ.R. 56(C), a party must show: (1) there are no
10 Case No. 1-10-66
genuine issues of material fact; (2) it appears from the evidence that reasonable
minds can reach but one conclusion when viewing evidence in the nonmoving
party’s favor, and that conclusion is adverse to the nonmoving party; and (3) the
moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Civ.R. 56(C); Shaffer, 90
Ohio St.3d at 390; Grafton, 77 Ohio St.3d at 105.
{¶31} “‘To maintain a wrongful death action on a theory of negligence, a
plaintiff must show (1) the existence of a duty owing to plaintiff’s decedent, (2) a
breach of that duty, and (3) proximate causation between the breach of duty and
the death.’” Estate of Ridley v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Mental Retardation &
Developmental Disabilities, 102 Ohio St.3d 230, 2004-Ohio-2629, 809 N.E.2d 2,
¶14, quoting Littleton v. Good Samaritan Hosp. & Health Ctr. (1988), 39 Ohio
St.3d 86, 92, 529 N.E.2d 449.
{¶32} The estate first argues that questions of fact exist concerning whether
the traffic light malfunctioned and whether Dr. Heider ran the red light. We
disagree. Although several individuals came forward after the accident with
accounts of how the traffic light at the intersection allegedly malfunctioned, none
of these individuals actually witnessed the accident. (Defendants’ Funk and
Ottawa Oil MSJ, Doc. No. 285, Ex. D). Additionally, every available accident
witness testified that Dr. Heider entered the intersection on a red light.
{¶33} Ronald Funk testified that, around 8:30 p.m. on November 14, 2006,
he was operating a tractor tanker-trailer around forty to forty-five (40-45) miles
11 Case No. 1-10-66
per hour westbound on Allentown Road when Dr. Heider, traveling southbound on
Eastown Road, ran a red light causing their vehicles to collide. (Funk Depo. at 17,
140, 153). Funk testified that it was a clear night on November 14, 2006. (Id. at
151). According to Funk, the traffic light controlling his westbound lane of travel
was green when he was about one-half (1/2) of a mile before the intersection on
Allentown Road. (Id. at 64). Funk testified that the traffic light controlling
westbound traffic on Allentown Road was continuously green, and the light
controlling southbound traffic on Eastown Road was continuously red prior to the
accident. (Id. at 61, 63, 146, 152, 162). Funk testified that he engaged his brakes
as soon as he realized that Dr. Heider was going to run the red light, but that he
ended up squarely hitting Dr. Heider’s vehicle, in the intersection. (Id. at 72, 75).
Funk testified repeatedly that Dr. Heider ran the red light causing the accident. (Id.
at 17, 55, 61, 72, 91). Funk also testified that he performed a pre-trip inspection of
his tractor tanker-trailer, and he did not discover any problems with the brakes.
(Id. at 134). Funk further testified that he did not lose control of his vehicle until
impact. (Id. at 103). Funk, who traveled through this intersection weekly, also
testified that he never witnessed the traffic light malfunction, and that the traffic
light appeared to be operating properly the night of the accident. (Id. at 139, 147,
149).
{¶34} Bryan McClure testified that he was traveling forty-five to fifty (45-
50) miles per hour southbound on Eastown Road approximately one-tenth (1/10)
12 Case No. 1-10-66
of a mile behind Dr. Heider’s vehicle the night of the accident. (McClure Depo. at
13, 19, 29). McClure testified that Dr. Heider’s vehicle was the only vehicle in
front of him that night, and that he saw at least one vehicle heading northbound on
Eastown Road that night. (Id. at 32). McClure testified that the light controlling
southbound Eastown Road traffic changed from green to yellow when Dr. Heider
was on Eastown Road where the road widens for a turn lane past Musser Drive.
(Id. at 22-24). McClure testified that he began to decelerate when the light
changed to yellow, but that Dr. Heider’s vehicle continued at the same speed. (Id.
at 20). McClure testified that Dr. Heider’s vehicle was before the stop bar when
the light changed from yellow to red, and that Dr. Heider “flat out ran * * * a red
light and got hit.” (Id. at 36, 47). McClure testified that the light controlling the
tractor trailer-tanker’s lane of travel was green when the accident occurred. (Id. at
87). McClure testified that: the light did not abruptly change colors nor was it
flashing green for both Eastown and Allentown Roads; there was plenty of time to
stop for the red light; and he could have stopped for the red light even if he was in
front of Dr. Heider’s vehicle. (Id. at 29-30, 78, 85). Dr. Heider’s vehicle never
braked or slowed down prior to the accident, according to McClure. (Id. at 63).
McClure testified that the tractor tanker-trailer was traveling around thirty-five to
forty (35-40) miles per hour through the intersection, even though the tractor
tanker-trailer driver hit his brakes prior to the accident. (Id. at 35, 40-41).
McClure denied consuming any alcohol the night of the accident, and testified that
13 Case No. 1-10-66
his testimony concerning the accident has consistently been that Dr. Heider ran the
red light. (Id. at 94, 98).
{¶35} Brittney Gordon testified that she was traveling northbound on
Eastown Road the night of the accident, and that the light controlling her lane of
traffic was red as she approached the intersection. (Brittney Gordon Depo. At 18,
35). She testified that no other cars were in front of her when she stopped for the
red light. (Id. at 16). She further testified that she saw the tractor tanker-trailer
come through the intersection traveling west toward Allentown while the light for
northbound traffic on Eastown Road was still red. (Id. at 20). Concerning the
accident, Brittney testified that she heard squealing tires, a loud hit, saw an
explosion, and heard people screaming. (Id. at 28, 43). She further testified that
the light controlling eastbound Allentown Road traffic was green at the time of the
accident, and the traffic light appeared to be functioning correctly. (Id. at 32, 73).
{¶36} Bethany Gordon, no relation to Brittney Gordon, testified that she
was traveling westbound on Allentown Road behind the tractor tanker-trailer
about two or three car lengths on the night of the accident. (Bethany Gordon Depo.
at 11, 14-15, 43). The tractor tanker-trailer slowed down and moved into the
turning lane as it approached the intersection, according to Bethany. (Id. at 16-17).
Bethany testified that the light for westbound Allentown Road traffic was green
and never changed. (Id. at 16). She also testified that cars were stopped for both
northbound and southbound Eastown Road lanes of travel, and cars were stopped
14 Case No. 1-10-66
for the eastbound Allentown Road lanes of travel to allow the tractor tanker-trailer
to turn onto Eastown Road. (Id. at 19-22). Bethany later testified that it was
possible that the tractor tanker-trailer was not turning left onto Eastown Road but
attempting to avoid the accident. (Id. at 40). Bethany testified that the traffic light
appeared to be functioning normally, and she has travelled through the intersection
many times and has never seen the light malfunction. (Id. at 43, 45, 46-48).
Bethany further testified that the traffic light controlling westbound Allentown
Road traffic was green from shortly after she passed the Tom Ahl car dealership
on Allentown Road and was never red prior to the accident. (Id. at 57, 68).
{¶37} Katrina “Chris” Estes testified that she was traveling westbound on
Allentown Road the night of the accident about three or four car lengths ahead of
the tractor tanker-trailer. (Estes Depo. at 11, 18). Estes testified that she was
slowing down for the light when it turned green, but that she cleared the
intersection on a green light going forty to forty-five (40-45) miles per hour. (Id. at
18-21). Estes testified that, after she cleared the intersection, she saw flames in
her rearview mirror and stopped her car to see the accident. (Id. at 21-22). Estes
testified that the light changed from red to green normally, and that she passes
through this intersection five to ten (5-10) times per week and has never noticed
any light malfunctions. (Id. at 34-35, 56).
{¶38} The testimony of alleged prior light malfunctions offered by the
estate is irrelevant for purposes of showing a traffic light malfunction on the night
15 Case No. 1-10-66
of the accident. See Pottorf v. Bray, 3d Dist. No. 17-03-09, 2003-Ohio-4255, ¶4
(upholding trial court’s decision to exclude as irrelevant testimony concerning
observations of a traffic signal’s timing sequence on days other than the day of the
accident). Krause v. Spartan Stores, Inc., 158 Ohio App.3d 304, 2004-Ohio-4365,
815 N.E.2d 696, ¶34 (evidence of prior parking light outages irrelevant to show
parking lot lighting was deficient on the night of the criminal activity); Moore v.
Habegger (Feb 16, 2001), 6th Dist. No. L-00-1248, at *4 (evidence of prior
parking lot light malfunctions was irrelevant as it related to the night of the
criminal activity). This is especially true here where all the direct evidence
demonstrates that the traffic light was functioning correctly on the night of the
accident. In fact, the record demonstrates that the traffic signal passed all three
hundred and forty-eight (348) systems tests both prior to the accident (March 15,
2005 and March 9, 2006) and two (2) days after the accident (Nov. 16, 2006).
(Stechschulte Depo. at 74-75); (Collision Reconstruction Report, Stechschulte Ex.
D); (Stump Depo. at 43, 50, 54, 184); (Sybert Depo. at 46, 50-51, 61). These
systems tests included tests on the conflict monitor. (Stechschulte Ex. D). The
conflict monitor causes the traffic lights to flash red for opposite directions of
traffic if the traffic signals mistakenly display green lights for opposite directions
of traffic (conflicting green lights) or if the traffic signal(s) mistakenly bypasses a
yellow light (green to red light) in its sequence. (Sybert Depo. at 50-51). Deputy
Stechschulte also concluded that the traffic control device was operating properly
16 Case No. 1-10-66
on the night of the accident, and that there was no evidence of a malfunction.
(Stechschulte Depo. at 74-76).
{¶39} After reviewing the record herein, we cannot conclude that a material
issue of fact exists with regard to whether or not the traffic signal malfunctioned or
whether or not Dr. Heider ran the red light on the night of the accident.
{¶40} The estate next argues that a material issue of fact exists concerning
whether or not unsatisfactory grounding of the traffic signal could have caused the
traffic signal to malfunction on the night of the accident. This argument lacks
merit for several reasons. As we have already noted, the record is devoid of any
evidence of a traffic signal malfunction. Aside from that, the record lacks
evidence that the traffic signal was improperly grounded. The estate points to an
ODOT report noting that the grounding of the traffic signal was “unsatisfactory.”
However, Chris Holmes, an ODOT signal electrician, testified that the report’s
notation of “unsatisfactory” means that the ground was not tested. (Holmes Depo.
at 11-12, 65-66). Holmes further explained that the contractor who installs the
signal cabinet tests for proper grounding of the cabinet. (Id. at 68). John Patrick,
ODOT’s project manager for the intersection, testified that he was present when
US Utility tested the signal cabinet’s grounding, and the signal cabinet passed the
grounding test. (Patrick Depo. at 112-13). Even the estate’s expert witness,
Vernon Tekell, admitted that the ODOT report’s conclusion of an “unsatisfactory”
ground was contradictory, because the report also noted a ground measurement of
17 Case No. 1-10-66
zero OHMs, which would have been a perfect ground. (Tekell Depo. at 129-31).
Furthermore, even assuming that the signal was improperly grounded, Tekell
could not testify that the unsatisfactory grounding caused the accident but only
that unsatisfactory grounding could cause intermittent problems, such as flickering
of the signal light. (Tekell Depo. at 93, 190). Notably, Tekell admitted that the
conflict monitor would still work properly despite unsatisfactory grounding, and
that he was not testifying that there were conflicting green lights in this case. (Id.
at 94, 170).
{¶41} Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that a material issue
of fact remains as to whether the traffic signal cabinet was improperly grounded
and, more importantly, whether the improper grounding caused the accident.
{¶42} The estate next argues that a material issue of fact exists as to
whether Funk violated a duty of ordinary care to yield to Dr. Heider who may have
been lawfully in the intersection at the time of the accident. Specifically, the
estate argues that McClure testified that Funk timed the red light so he could
maintain speed and entered the intersection just as the light turned green. This
argument lacks merit as well. As an initial matter, the estate’s assumption that Dr.
Heider may have entered the intersection lawfully is not supported by the record.
Every available eyewitness testified that Dr. Heider entered the intersection on a
red light, so he was not lawfully in the intersection at the time of the accident. R.C.
4511.13(C)(1). Furthermore, the estate mischaracterizes McClure’s testimony.
18 Case No. 1-10-66
McClure did not testify that Funk was timing the red light only that Funk “could
have been,” because he (McClure) would have been timing the light under the
circumstances. (McClure Depo. at 85-86). Additionally, the estate’s assumption
that Funk was entering the intersection just as his light turned green is not
supported by the evidence. Estes, not Funk, was the first person that entered the
intersection after the light turned green. (Estes Depo. at 11). Estes testified that
she was three to four (3-4) car lengths ahead of Funk and passed through the
intersection going forty to forty-five (40-45) miles per hour. (Estes Depo. at 18-
21). Funk estimated that the light was green while he was still one-half mile (1/2
mi.) east of the intersection. (Funk Depo. at 64). Therefore, we find no material
issue of fact remaining on this issue.
{¶43} Finally, the estate argues that, assuming the traffic light
malfunctioned, Funk owed Dr. Heider a duty of ordinary care, citing Welch v.
Canton City Lines (1943), 142 Ohio St. 166, 50 N.E.2d 343. This argument also
lacks merit. The facts of this case are distinguishable from Welch, supra. The
traffic light in Welch was working for one direction of travel but not working at all
for the other direction of travel. 142 Ohio St. at 168. As a result, one motorist
entered the intersection on a green light, while the other motorist entered the
intersection without any light being illuminated. Id. Under these facts, the Court
concluded that each vehicle was lawfully in the intersection; and therefore, each
had equal rights, and the driver of each was bound to exercise ordinary care. Id. at
19 Case No. 1-10-66
171. The traffic light in this case, however, was working for both directions of
traffic, and, furthermore, the record indicates that the light was functioning
properly at the time of the accident. As such, Welch is inapplicable. Aside from
that, the record contains evidence demonstrating that Funk exercised reasonable
care to avoid the accident by taking evasive action in the form of hard braking as
soon as he realized that Dr. Heider was not stopping for the red light. (Funk Depo.
at 72); (Stechschulte Depo. at 40-41, 44); (McClure Depo. at 35). (Bethany
Gordon Depo. at 17). Therefore, we find no issues of material fact remain on this
issue either.
{¶44} For all these reasons, the estate’s first and second assignments of
error are overruled.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. III
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN HOLDING THAT DEFENDANTS RONALD FUNK AND OTTAWA OIL WERE ONLY SUSCEPTIBLE OF NEGLIGENT MAINTENANCE IF DEFENDANTS KNEW OR HAD REASON TO KNOW OF THE UNDERLYING DEFECT IN THE TRACTOR TANKER TRUCK.
{¶45} In its third and final assignment of error, the estate argues that the
trial court erred by relying upon Bloomer v. Van Kow Enterprises (May 5, 1994),
8th Dist. No. 64970 to conclude that its negligent maintenance claim failed as a
matter of law because Bloomer was a products liability case. The estate further
argues that evidence of defective maintenance goes to Funk’s ability to control the
vehicle upon the roadway as required under R.C. 4511.20.2. The estate finally
20 Case No. 1-10-66
argues that defendants Funk and Ottawa Oil may be negligent per se under R.C.
4513.20(A)(9)2 for failing to adjust the brakes so as to operate as equally as
practicable with respect to the wheels on the opposite sides of the vehicle.
{¶46} The estate’s arguments lack merit. As an initial matter, the estate
never raised the defendants’ failure to comply with R.C. 4511.20.2 or
4513.20(A)(9)3 in their response to defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
(Doc. No. 317). As such, the estate cannot raise the issue for the first time on
appeal. See Hood v. Rose, 153 Ohio App.3d 199, 2003-Ohio-3268, 792 N.E.2d
736, ¶10.
{¶47} Furthermore, the trial court’s reliance upon Bloomer, supra, was not
erroneous as the estate argues. Bloomer involved multiple claims against multiple
defendants arising from an accident where a Van Kow employee was injured when
the truck he was servicing rolled off of the lift ramps dragging him one hundred
(100) feet. 8th Dist. No. 64790, at *1. Although the plaintiff did assert product
liability claims against the defendants, he also asserted a claim of negligent
maintenance against Jartran Enterprises, the owner of the truck, for failing to
maintain the truck’s emergency brake system. Id. The Court of Appeals found
that plaintiff’s negligent maintenance claim failed, however, because “there [was]
no evidence that Jartran deviated from the regular maintenance schedules for the
vehicle or that Jartran knew of any facts which would make it reasonable to
2 R.C. 4513.20(A)(10), not R.C. 4513.20(A)(9) is the applicable section governing the equal braking requirement. 3 Id.
21 Case No. 1-10-66
specifically check the emergency brake system when not otherwise instructed to
do so by regular maintenance recommendations.” Id. at *3. Like the Court in
Bloomer, the trial court here determined that the estate’s negligent maintenance
claim failed because there was no question as to whether the defendants were
aware or should have been aware of the alleged brake defects. (Mar. 20, 2010 JE,
Doc. No. 331). Therefore, the trial court’s reliance upon Bloomer in this case was
not erroneous as the estate argues.
{¶48} The estate’s third assignment of error is, therefore, overruled.
{¶49} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the
particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
ROGERS, P.J., and SHAW, J., concur.
/jnc