Brown v. Ohio State Highway Patrol

Full title: ANDREW M. BROWN Plaintiff v. OHIO STATE HIGHWAY PATROL Defendant

Court: Court of Claims of Ohio

Date published: Feb 3, 2020

2020 Ohio 3169 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 2020)

Opinion

Case No. 2019-00807JD

02-03-2020

ANDREW M. BROWN Plaintiff v. OHIO STATE HIGHWAY PATROL Defendant

Judge Patrick M. McGrath

Magistrate Scott Sheets

ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

{¶1} On August 20, 2019, defendant filed a motion in which it moved the court to dismiss plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) or, in the alternative, for an order granting summary judgment in its favor pursuant to Civ.R. 56. Plaintiff filed a response on September 12, 2019. On November 27, 2019, the court converted defendant's motion to a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 56(B) and scheduled a non-oral hearing for the consideration thereof for January 2, 2020. Neither party filed additional evidence or briefs for consideration, and defendant's motion is now before the court for a non-oral hearing pursuant to L.C.C.R. 4(D).

Civ.R. 56(C) states, in part, as follows:

Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of evidence, and written stipulations of fact, if any, timely filed in the action, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. No evidence or stipulation may be considered except as stated in this rule. A summary judgment shall not be rendered unless it appears from the evidence or stipulation, and only from the evidence or stipulation, that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is

made, that party being entitled to have the evidence or stipulation construed most strongly in the party's favor.

{¶2} "[T]he moving party bears the initial responsibility of informing the trial court of the basis for the motion, and identifying those portions of the record before the trial court which demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact on a material element of the nonmoving party's claim." Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 292 (1996). To meet this initial burden, the moving party must be able to point to evidentiary materials of the type listed in Civ.R. 56(C). Id. at 292-293.

{¶3} When a moving party makes a properly supported motion for summary judgment, the adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials in the pleadings but "by affidavit or as otherwise provided in [Civ.R. 56] must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Civ.R. 56(E). When ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court may only consider the evidence properly before it pursuant to Civ.R. 56(C) and 56(E). CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Wiley, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 15AP-642, 2016-Ohio-5902, ¶ 10. The court must resolve all doubts and construe the evidence in favor of the nonmoving party. Pilz v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 04AP-240, 2004-Ohio-4040, ¶ 8.

In his complaint, plaintiff asserts:

On July 6^th 2019, Plaintiff was injured by the Defendant during a traffic stop. Plaintiff's skull was injured the back middle of the skull in a straight line going from the left ear to the right ear. (See Diagrams A & B) Defendant is the tortfeasor for the injury. Skull was injured on the code number the Defendant pulled over the Plaintiff's rental car for.

(sic passim.) (Complaint.) Plaintiff thus asserts that defendant's employee, a state trooper, battered him or negligently injured him during a traffic stop.

{¶4} In its August 20, 2019 motion, defendant asserts that its trooper stopped plaintiff for speeding and following too closely to the vehicle in front of him. The trooper issued plaintiff a ticket. According to defendant, the trooper did not come into physical contact with plaintiff, nor even require plaintiff to step out of his vehicle. (August 20, 2019 Motion, p. 2.) Defendant thus argues that its agent could not have negligently injured or battered plaintiff.

{¶5} In support of its motion, defendant submitted an affidavit of Christopher Jackson, the state trooper who conducted the traffic stop, and a copy of the dash camera video of the traffic stop. Upon review of the video, it is clear that plaintiff remained in his car for the duration of the stop and that the trooper did not cause any injury to plaintiff, either intentionally or negligently. The closest that plaintiff and the trooper came to physical contact was when the trooper handed plaintiff the traffic ticket. The stop concluded, and plaintiff drove away.

Civil Rule 56(E) states, in part:

When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the party's pleadings, but the party's response, by affidavit or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If the party does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against the party.

Plaintiff did not submit any Civ.R. 56 evidence. Although plaintiff submitted with his complaint two diagrams that appear to be diagrams of a human skull, he did not submit an affidavit asserting that the diagrams are of his skull or how he obtained them. Therefore, the diagrams are not properly before the court for consideration in evaluating defendant's motion for summary judgment. Moreover, even if the unauthenticated diagrams were considered, they do not suffice to create an issue of material fact. Even if plaintiff could prove that the diagrams accurately depicted his head, it is clear from the video that the trooper did not cause any injury to plaintiff during the traffic stop, intentionally, negligently, or otherwise.

{¶6} Construing the evidence most strongly in plaintiff's favor, the court finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding the circumstances of the traffic stop, the trooper's lack of contact with plaintiff, and plaintiff's lack of injury during the traffic stop. As such, defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to any claims plaintiff has attempted to assert based on the traffic stop. Therefore, defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Judgment is rendered in favor of defendant. Court costs are assessed against plaintiff. The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its entry upon the journal.

/s/_________

PATRICK M. MCGRATH

Judge Filed February 3, 2020
Sent to S.C. Reporter 6/3/20