Neyer v. Miami Univ.

2010 Ohio 3161
CourtOhio Court of Claims
DecidedMarch 12, 2010
Docket2010-01972-AD
StatusPublished

This text of 2010 Ohio 3161 (Neyer v. Miami Univ.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Neyer v. Miami Univ., 2010 Ohio 3161 (Ohio Super. Ct. 2010).

Opinion

[Cite as Neyer v. Miami Univ., 2010-Ohio-3161.]

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

CAITLIN K. NEYER

Plaintiff

v.

MIAMI UNIVERSITY

Defendant

Case No. 2010-01972-AD

Clerk Miles C. Durfey

MEMORANDUM DECISION

FINDINGS OF FACT {¶ 1} 1) On January 19, 2010, plaintiff, Caitlin K. Neyer, sustained damage to her eyeglasses as a result of negligence on the part of an employee of defendant, Miami University, in conducting maintenance activity on university grounds. {¶ 2} 2) Plaintiff filed this complaint seeking to recover damages in the amount of $346.66 for replacement eyeglasses, plus $34.00 for transportation expenses (mileage) to obtain her eyeglasses in Cincinnati and then return to Miami University. The $25.00 filing fee was paid and plaintiff requested reimbursement of that cost in addition to her claimed damages. {¶ 3} 3) Defendant filed an investigation report noting that “[t]he [d]efendant believes that the [p]laintiff has a valid claim for the eyeglasses costing $346.66 and reimbursement of the $25.00 court filing fee for a total claim of $371.66.” Defendant disputed plaintiff’s claim for transportation expenses observing that “there are two Ophthalmologists, two Optometrists and an Optician in Oxford, all of which could have been reached by the University owned transportation service at no cost to the Plaintiff.” Case No. 2006-03532-AD -2- MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case No. 2006-03532-AD -2- MEMORANDUM DECISION

{¶ 4} 4) Plaintiff filed a response insisting that her claim for transportation expenses is valid due to the circumstances presented. Plaintiff pointed out that she needed replacement eyeglasses quickly and did not want to incur additional expenses in connection with obtaining a new eye examination.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW {¶ 5} 1) Defendant was charged with a duty to exercise reasonable care for the protection of plaintiff’s property while performing any maintenance work. Hoelle v. Miami Univ., Ct. of Cl. No. 2005-06970-AD, 2005-Ohio-4643. In regards to the facts of this claim, negligence on the part of defendant has been shown. Rust v. Miami Univ., Ct. of Cl. No. 2005-01226-AD, 2005-Ohio-1248; Dunlap v. Ohio Univ., Ct. of Cl. No. 2009-06010-AD, 2009-Ohio-7081. {¶ 6} 2) As trier of fact, this court has the power to award reasonable damages based on evidence presented. Sims v. Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (1988), 61 Ohio Misc. 2d 239, 577 N.E. 2d 160. {¶ 7} 3) Damage assessment is a matter within the function of the trier of fact. Litchfield v. Morris (1985), 25 Ohio App. 3d 42, 25 OBR 115, 495 N.E. 2d 462. Reasonable certainty as to the amount of damages is required, which is that degree of Case No. 2006-03532-AD -3- MEMORANDUM DECISION

certainty of which the nature of the case admits. Bemmes v. Pub. Emp. Retirement Sys. Of Ohio (1995), 102 Ohio App. 3d 782, 658 N.E. 2d 31. {¶ 8} 4) Plaintiff has suffered damages in the amount of $380.66. The $25.00 filing fee may be reimbursed as compensable costs pursuant to R.C. 2335.19. See Bailey v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (1990), 62 Ohio Misc. 2d 19, 587 N.E. 2d 990.

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 Case No. 2006-03532-AD -4- MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case No. 2006-03532-AD -4- MEMORANDUM DECISION

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 plaintiff in the amount of $405.66, which includes the filing fee. Court costs are assessed against defendant. Case No. 2006-03532-AD -5- MEMORANDUM DECISION

MILES C. DURFEY Clerk Entry cc:

Caitlin K. Neyer Paul S. Allen 5751 Chestnut Ridge Drive Miami University Cincinnati, Ohio 45230 Roudebush Hall, Room 14 Oxford, Ohio 45056 RDK/laa 2/23 Filed 3/12/10 Sent to S.C. reporter 7/1/10

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Bemmes v. Public Employees Retirement System
658 N.E.2d 31 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1995)
Litchfield v. Morris
495 N.E.2d 462 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2010 Ohio 3161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neyer-v-miami-univ-ohioctcl-2010.