FIRST DISTRICT
COURT OF APPEALS
THESE SUMMARIES ARE NEITHER APPROVED IN ADVANCE NOR ENDORSED BY THE COURT. THEY ARE NOT HEADNOTES OR SYLLABI. INTERESTED PARTIES SHOULD OBTAIN COPIES OF THE ACTUAL DECISIONS FROM THE CLERK OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.
DATE: Wednesday, September 18, 2024
CAPTION: TAUCHERT V. RUMPKE SANITARY LANDFILL, INC.
APPEAL NO.: C-230566
TRIAL NO.: A-2202471
KEY WORDS: CIV.R. 56 — SUMMARY JUDGMENT — WRONGFUL DEATH — DUTY — CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE — LANDOWNER
SUMMARY: In this wrongful-death action, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of defendant property owner where, when considering either the rural or urban standard of care for a landowner with trees abutting a public highway, issues of material fact remained as to the condition of the tree that fell onto the roadway and caused the accident that ultimately led to the decedent’s death. [See CONCURRENCE: The Supreme Court of Ohio should abandon the categorical urban-rural distinction holding urban landowners to a higher liability standard than rural landowners regarding tree-related hazards on their property that may affect passersby on roads abutting their property.] [But see DISSENT: Because Rumpke does not have a general duty to inspect the thousands of trees on its property, and Rumpke did not have actual or constructive notice of the defective condition of the particular tree prior to its fall onto decedent’s vehicle, Rumpke cannot be held liable for the decedent’s death as a matter of law.]
JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND CAUSE REMANDED
JUDGES: OPINION by ZAYAS, P.J.; BERGERON, J., CONCURS SEPARATELY and WINKLER, J., DISSENTS.
CAPTION: STATE V. HART
APPEAL NO.: C-240086
TRIAL NO.: B-2302647
KEY WORDS: APPELLATE REVIEW/CRIMINAL – SENTENCING – R.C. 2929.11 – R.C. 2929.12
SUMMARY: The trial court’s imposition of the maximum sentence of 18 months in prison for aggravated assault was not contrary to law where the trial court’s remarks and findings indicated that it had considered the purposes of felony sentencing and multiple statutory sentencing factors, and the sentence was within the permissible statutory range for a fourth-degree felony.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by BOCK, P.J.; ZAYAS and KINSLEY, JJ., CONCUR.
CAPTION: IN RE: L.S.H.
APPEAL NO.: C-240310
TRIAL NO.: F19-221Z
KEY WORDS: PARENTAL TERMINATION — PERMANENT CUSTODY — COUNSEL — MOTION TO WITHDRAW
SUMMARY: The juvenile court properly granted permanent custody of the child to the agency where clear and convincing evidence supported its findings that the child cannot be placed with either parent within a reasonable time or should not be placed with either parent and that a grant of permanent custody to the agency was in the best interest of the child.
The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by denying father’s counsel’s motion to withdraw where: (1) the motion was made shortly before the dispositional hearing; (2) father was provided an opportunity to secure new counsel but chose not to do so; (3) father did not request additional time to secure a new attorney; (4) it was unclear whether father was competent to agree to the motion to withdraw; and (5) father’s current counsel, who had represented father for eight months prior, was familiar with the case.
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
JUDGES: OPINION by WINKLER, J.; CROUSE, P.J., and KINSLEY, J., CONCUR.