From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rapino v. Bauman Auto Stores

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District, Lucas County
Aug 27, 1999
Court of Appeals No. L-99-1107. Trial Court No. CI97-4224 (Ohio Ct. App. Aug. 27, 1999)

Summary

In Rapino, as in this case, the run reports were simply attached to a memorandum; they were not introduced by way of affidavit or deposition or in any other way that would make them proper summary judgment evidence.

Summary of this case from Krause v. Spartan Stores, Inc.

Opinion

Court of Appeals No. L-99-1107. Trial Court No. CI97-4224.

Decided August 27, 1999.

Lorin J. Zaner, for appellant.

Gene A. Zmuda and Todd M. Zimmerman, for appellee M.P.G., Inc.


OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY


This is an accelerated appeal from a judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas which granted summary judgment to appellee, M.P.G., Inc., in this negligence lawsuit which arose out of the injuries sustained by appellant, Stacy Rapino, when she was assaulted by a third party in the parking lot of an auto parts store operated by appellee. This court affirms the judgment of the trial court.

Appellant sets forth the following assignment of error:

"The Court of Common Pleas of Lucas County, Ohio committed prejudicial error in its decision and judgment entry journalized on

March 4, 1999 when it granted summary judgment to the defendant, M.P.G., Inc. and ruled that considering the totality of the circumstances, in the exercise of reasonable care, M.P.G., Inc. could not have foreseen the Plaintiff's attack."

In considering appellant's assignment of error and arguments in support thereof, this court reviewed the record of this cause, the relevant case law and applied this law. After doing so, we conclude that the well-reasoned opinion and judgment entry of the Honorable Frederick H. McDonald properly determines and correctly disposes of the material issues in this case. We therefore adopt the judgment of the trial court as our own. See Appendix A. Appellant's assignment of error is found not well-taken.

The judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See, also, 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4, amended 1/1/98.

Peter M. Handwork, P.J. ____________________________ JUDGE

James R. Sherck, J. ____________________________ JUDGE

Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. ____________________________ JUDGE CONCUR.


Summaries of

Rapino v. Bauman Auto Stores

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District, Lucas County
Aug 27, 1999
Court of Appeals No. L-99-1107. Trial Court No. CI97-4224 (Ohio Ct. App. Aug. 27, 1999)

In Rapino, as in this case, the run reports were simply attached to a memorandum; they were not introduced by way of affidavit or deposition or in any other way that would make them proper summary judgment evidence.

Summary of this case from Krause v. Spartan Stores, Inc.
Case details for

Rapino v. Bauman Auto Stores

Case Details

Full title:Stacy Rapino, Appellant v. Bauman Auto Stores, et al., Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District, Lucas County

Date published: Aug 27, 1999

Citations

Court of Appeals No. L-99-1107. Trial Court No. CI97-4224 (Ohio Ct. App. Aug. 27, 1999)

Citing Cases

Shivers v. University of Cincinnati

Plaintiff submitted a crime statistic sheet listing the number and type of crimes reported to the University…

Krause v. Spartan Stores, Inc.

{¶ 21} We have previously come to a similar conclusion in a similar case. See Rapino v. Bauman Auto Stores…