Case Title: Bachus v. Loral Corp.

Citation: 1993-Ohio-16

Docket Number: 19912365

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1993-09-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO                               
     The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of                      
Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,                      
1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice                   
Thomas J. Moyer.                                                                 
     Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's                   
Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio.  Attention:  Walter S.                      
Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative                         
Assistant.  Tel.:  (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.                       
Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.                            
     NOTE:  Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the                  
full texts of the opinions after they have been released                         
electronically to the public.  The reader is therefore advised                   
to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West                       
Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.                     
The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume                    
and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound                   
volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.                                            
                                                                                 
Bachus et al., Appellants, v. Loral Corporation, Appellee.                       
[Cite as Bachus v. Loral Corp. (1993),     Ohio St.3d    .]                      
Appeal dismissed when issue presented is moot -- Enactment of                    
     Civ.R. 34(D) moots issue, when.                                             
     (No. 91-2365 -- Submitted April 6, 1993 -- Decided                          
September 15, 1993.)                                                             
     Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Summit County, No.                     
15041.                                                                           
                                                                                 
     Michael F. Colley Co., L.P.A., Michael F. Colley, David I.                  
Shroyer and David K. Frank, for appellants.                                      
     Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs and Charles E. Pierson,                   
for appellee.                                                                    
     Ronald D. Major, urging reversal for amicus curiae, Ohio                    
Academy of Trial Lawyers.                                                        
                                                                                 
     On April 6, 1993, this matter was submitted to the court                    
upon briefs and oral argument.  On July 1, 1993, Civ.R. 34(D)                    
became effective.                                                                
     The court determines that the issue presented in this case                  
has been disposed of with the adoption of Civ.R. 34(D) and that                  
the issue is therefore moot.                                                     
     Therefore, case No. 91-2365 is hereby dismissed.                            
     Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Wright and Resnick, JJ., concur.                 
Douglas, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent.                                 
     Douglas, J., dissenting.     I respectfully dissent.  I                     
agree that Civ.R. 34(D) attempts to (and does) answer some of                    
the questions in the case now before us.  That does not,                         
however, negate our responsibility to correct case law that we                   
know is wrong, especially when we have accepted for review a                     
case which directly presents to us the previously erroneously                    
decided issue.                                                                   
     In 1989, we decided Poulos v. Parker Sweeper Co. (1989),                    
44 Ohio St.3d 124, 541 N.E.2d 1031.  While the ultimate                          
judgment in that case was, in part, correct, the major premise                   
for which the case stands is just plain wrong.  This fact was                    
recognized and, in answer to the problem, Civ.R. 34(D) was                       
proposed and adopted.  The rule, incidentally, was adopted by                    
the court without having gone through the usual steps of                         
debate, consideration and vote of the Rules Advisory Committee                   
and/or public comment.                                                           
     Be all that as it may, we should not dismiss the case at                    
bar as moot.  We should decide the issue presented and                           
specifically overrule Poulos.  I have no difficulty in candidly                  
admitting when we are wrong.  We should not be afraid to do                      
so.  We should heed the admonition of Justice Stern in                           
Cleveland Elec. Illum. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1976), 46 Ohio                   
St.2d 105, 119, 75 O.O.2d 172, 180, 346 N.E.2d 778, 787, fn. 8,                  
where he said, "This court is more accustomed to detecting and                   
correcting the errors of others than its own.  It is to be                       
hoped that we will always remain willing to correct them                         
whether found in either place."                                                  
     Today, I believe, we fail that test.  Accordingly, I would                  
decide the case before us on its merits.  Because the majority                   
does not do so, I respectfully dissent.                                          
     F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur in the foregoing                      
dissenting opinion.