Opinion
No. 79-875
Decided June 4, 1980.
Negligence — Automobile collision — Private parking lot — Motion for directed verdict — Properly overruled, when — Jury to determine liability.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County.
Anne D. Regan (hereinafter appellant) initiated a civil action against Scioto Beverages Company and its employee, Melvin V. Little (hereinafter appellees), for personal injuries arising out of an automobile collision.
On August 20, 1974, a collision occurred in a private parking lot which is located near the southwest corner of Livingston Avenue and Courtright Road in Columbus, Ohio.
The collision occurred at the northeast corner of the supermarket located on Livingston Avenue. Just prior to the collision, appellant's automobile had been proceeding east along the front of the supermarket headed toward Courtright Road. Appellees' motor vehicle, a beer truck operated by Little, was proceeding north from the east side of the building headed toward Livingston Avenue. Appellant testified that she did not see the beer truck until immediately prior to the collision.
Prior to the collision, appellees' vehicle stopped with the front bumper even with the front edge of the sidewalk which runs along the north wall of the supermarket. Little testified that he looked to his left and saw appellant's car approaching at a slow rate of speed, approximately two and one-half to four car lengths away. Nonetheless, Little proceeded forward on the determination that he could avoid a collision with appellant's vehicle. Little testified further that the appellant, immediately prior to the collision, swerved her vehicle to the left. It is undisputed that, even if appellant had not swerved, a collision would have occurred.
The cause was submitted to the jury upon instructions that, since a private parking lot was involved, there are no statutory duties applicable and that the jury should determine the case predicated upon its findings as to whether the parties exercised ordinary care under the circumstances.
After the close of all the evidence, appellant moved the court to direct a verdict in her favor. The trial court overruled the motion. After deliberation, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the appellees and judgment was entered on the verdict. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
The cause is now before this court pursuant to the allowance of a motion to certify the record.
Messrs. Pees Behal and Mr. Randall W. Pees, for appellant.
Wiles, Doucher, Tressler Van Buren Co., L.P.A., and Mr. Daniel G. Wiles, for appellees.
Appellant raises two propositions of law very similar to those in the companion case of Humphrey v. Dent, 62 Ohio St.2d 273, decided this day.
In her first proposition of law, appellant asserts, in essence, that the trial court erred by not directing a verdict in her favor and, thus, determining that appellees were not negligent as a matter of law. For the reasons more fully explained in Humphrey v. Dent (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 273, we hold that the trial court properly overruled the motion for a directed verdict. Appellant's first proposition of law is without merit.
Appellant, in her second proposition of law, in essence, asserts that this court should adopt a rule of comparative negligence. For the same reasons espoused in Humphrey v. Dent, supra, we hold that any law in this area should emanate from the General Assembly. Accordingly, appellant's second proposition of law is also without merit.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., HERBERT, W. BROWN, P. BROWN, SWEENEY, LOCHER and HOLMES, JJ., concur.