Court Opinion

ID: 9956320
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-01 19:08:47.32031+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:50.350278
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Canter v. Kingdomwork, L.L.C., 2024-Ohio-1231.]

                                   IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

                          TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

                                          BUTLER COUNTY

 DOMINICK CANTER, et al.,                            :

        Appellants,                                  :     CASE NO. CA2023-05-049

                                                     :          OPINION
     - vs -                                                      4/1/2024
                                                     :

 KINGDOMWORK, LLC, et al.,                           :

        Appellees.                                   :

              APPEAL FROM BUTLER COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                            Case No. CV 2021 09 1343

The Attkisson Law Firm, LLC, and Jack J. Lah, for appellant, Dominick Canter.

Bruns, Connell, Vollmar & Armstrong, LLC, and Thomas B. Bruns and Lucinda C.
Shirooni, for appellee, Kingdomwork, LLC.

        PIPER, J.

        {¶ 1} Appellant, Dominick Canter ("Canter"), timely appeals the trial court's entry

which adopted the magistrate's decision granting summary judgment to appellee,

Kingdomwork, LLC ("Kingdomwork").

        {¶ 2} The single-car accident that is the subject of this suit occurred on March 9,
                                                                          Butler CA2023-05-049

2021. Canter was a passenger along with Charles Barrett and Kahil Cozad in a vehicle

driven by Jordan Kenyon. Kenyon was driving nearly 80 miles per hour when he lost

control of the vehicle. The car went off the road onto Kingdomwork's property and hit a

freestanding sign constructed of brick. The vehicle then careened onward, hitting a

nearby building. Canter and Cozad were seriously injured while Barrett died from the

injuries he sustained.

       {¶ 3} Canter filed suit against Kenyon and Kingdomwork,1 and alleged that

Kingdomwork was negligent per se because the sign was too close to the road. Andrew

Larkin, personal representative of Barrett's estate, and Cozad later joined the suit, also

alleging negligence by Kingdomwork for the sign's placement.

       {¶ 4} Canter filed a motion for summary judgment, and Kingdomwork filed a

motion for summary judgment against all three passengers. The parties' cross motions

focused on whether the placement of the brick sign on Kingdomwork's property

constituted negligence per se. The parties agreed that because the sign was less than

10 feet from the road that it would be in violation of the Middletown Development Code

("MDC") unless an exception applied.

       {¶ 5} Kingdomwork presented to the court, via affidavit, a certified copy of a

certificate of zoning compliance from the city of Middletown regarding the construction of

the sign at the property. According to that document, the sign was constructed in 1974

when the property was owned by Ohio Bell Telephone. The certificate is not signed by

the applicant who submitted the form, but it was signed by the Middletown zoning

administrator on April 2, 1974 and issued certificate number 1990.74. The copy of the

certificate submitted with Kingdomwork's motion was certified as a true and accurate copy

1. The complaint also named State Farm Mutual Insurance, the Ohio Department of Medicaid, and United
Healthcare as defendants because they may have subrogation interest in the case.

                                               -2-
                                                                     Butler CA2023-05-049

by Middletown Development Services on July 26, 2022.

         {¶ 6} In resolving the motions for summary judgment, a Butler County magistrate

applied a "grandfather clause" found within the MDC and found that because the sign

was compliant when it was constructed, the sign remained compliant at the time of the

accident. The magistrate also noted that Canter did not provide any evidence to counter

the evidence put forward by Kingdomwork that showed the sign was compliant when it

was installed. Thus, the trial court found negligence per se could not be established and

that Kingdomwork was entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to the parties' negligence

claim.

         {¶ 7} Kingdomwork moved for summary judgment on several other grounds as

well: (1) the sign was not a hazard to ordinary on the road travel; (2) Canter had assumed

the risk of being in a high-speed vehicle; (3) that Canter and the others in the vehicle were

trespassers; (4) the sign was an open and obvious risk; and (5) the sign was not the

proximate cause of Canter's injuries. Regarding these arguments, the magistrate simply

stated, "With the exception of Kingdomwork's arguments regarding primary assumption

of the risk, this Court finds all of Kingdomwork's arguments persuasive. This Court finds

particularly persuasive the authority set forth in the case of Snay v. Burr, 167 Ohio St.3d

123, 2021-Ohio-4113 (2021)."

         {¶ 8} After reviewing the applicable law and the magistrate's factual

determinations, the trial court adopted the magistrate's decision, and Canter filed this

appeal.

         {¶ 9} On appeal, Canter raises a single assignment of error:

               THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW TO
               APPELLANT'S PREJUDICE IN HOLDING THAT A
               VIOLATION OF MIDDLETOWN DEVELOPMENT CODE
               SECTION   122.08(d)(4), A SAFETY  ORDINANCE
               REQUIRING ALL FREESTANDING SIGNS TO BE SET

                                            -3-
                                                                  Butler CA2023-05-049

             BACK NO LESS THAN TEN FEET FROM THE PUBLIC
             RIGHT-OF-WAY, DOES NOT CONSTITUTE NEGLIGENCE
             PER SE.

      {¶ 10} As an initial matter, we note that Canter's single assignment of error does

not address the other grounds under which summary judgment was granted. As a result,

our analysis on review will be limited to whether the placement of the sign was compliant

under the law and whether Kingdomwork was negligent per se.

      {¶ 11} Canter argues on appeal there is no evidence which shows the certificate

of zoning compliance was "valid." The certificate, he argues, was not signed by an

applicant or accompanied by other documentation the certification required. In addition,

Canter asserts that the certificate does not, by itself, demonstrate that the sign "was

erected in conformance with a valid certificate of zoning and compliance." Canter asserts

these issues should have been decided by a jury.

      {¶ 12} Under Civ.R. 56, a trial court may grant summary judgment when, "there is

no genuine issue of material fact remaining for trial, the moving party is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law, and reasonable minds can only come to a conclusion

adverse to the nonmoving party, construing the evidence most strongly in that party's

favor." Total Quality Logistics, L.L.C. v. JK & R Express, L.L.C., 12th Dist. Clermont,

2022-Ohio-3969, ¶ 17. Trial courts should hesitatingly grant summary judgment, giving

the nonmoving party all benefits of doubt. Welco Indus., Inc. v. Applied Cos., 67 Ohio

St.3d 344, 346 (1993), citing Murphy v. Reynoldsburg, 65 Ohio St.3d 356 (1992).

      {¶ 13} The unsupported assertion by the moving party that the nonmoving party

has no evidence to prove its case is not sufficient ground for the trial court to grant

summary judgment.      Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 1996-Ohio-107 (1996).

However, if the moving party fulfills its burden and the nonmoving party presents no

evidence to support the merits of their case, summary judgment is proper. Welco Indus.

                                          -4-
                                                                      Butler CA2023-05-049

at 346, citing Wing v. Anchor Media, Ltd. of Texas, 59 Ohio St.3d. 108, paragraph three

of the syllabus (1991). "Mere speculation is insufficient to create a genuine issue of

material fact to avoid summary judgment." Fontain v. H&R Cincy Properties, LLC, 12th

Dist. Warren No. CA2021-02-015, 2022-Ohio-1000, ¶ 67.

       {¶ 14} The granting or denial of summary judgment is reviewed on a de novo basis,

and appellate courts consider the same standard as the trial court. Holtrey v. Wiedeman,

12th Dist. Warren No. CA2023-01-011, 2023-Ohio-2440, ¶ 12.

       {¶ 15} MDC 1230.02 defines freestanding signs as "[a]ny sign supported upon the

ground by a monument, pedestal, pole, bracing, or other permanent measure and not

attached to any building." Under MDC 1220.08(d)(4), "All freestanding signs shall be set

back a minimum of 10 feet from all rights-of-way and from adjacent lot lines and 50 feet

from any adjacent lot in a residential zoning district or used solely for residential uses."

However, MDC 1220.10(a) states that "signs that do not conform to the specific standards

of this code may be considered legally nonconforming if the sign was erected in

conformance with a valid certificate of zoning compliance and complied with all applicable

laws at the time of the sign's installation * * *."

       {¶ 16} We find no error by the trial court in granting summary judgment against

Canter. The parties agree that the sign is not compliant under MDC 1220.08(d)(4)

because the sign is only five feet away from the road. However, Kingdomwork presented

evidence that the city of Middletown issued a certificate of zoning compliance regarding

the sign in 1974. Regardless of whether the application, or the certified copy of it, contains

the signature of the person who applied for the certification or whether all the required

paperwork was attached to the application for certification, the certificate was signed and

issued by the city of Middletown. As a result, there is no evidence suggesting the

certificate is invalid or that the sign otherwise failed to comply with all applicable laws at

                                               -5-
                                                                    Butler CA2023-05-049

the time it was constructed. As a result, the sign is "legally nonconforming" under the

MDC.

       {¶ 17} Similarly, there is no reason to believe that the sign was not constructed in

conformance with the certificate. Canter's argument amounts to mere speculation. There

is nothing in the record which remotely speaks to, let alone supports, Canter's assertion

that the sign was not compliant when it was constructed. Therefore, Canter's negligence

claim on the basis of negligence per se fails as a matter of law.

       {¶ 18} As a result of the foregoing, we agree with the trial court that there is no

genuine issue of material fact remaining for trial and that Kingdomwork was entitled to

judgment as a matter of law. The sign fell under the "grandfather" clause of the MDC.

       {¶ 19} Judgment affirmed.

       S. POWELL, P.J., and BYRNE, J., concur.

                                           -6-