Court Opinion

ID: 9954118
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-25 18:10:13.514743+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:11:51.158406
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Miller v. Transp. Office, Inc., 2024-Ohio-1104.]

             IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                              SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                   MONROE COUNTY

                                   JEREMY B. MILLER ET AL.,

                                         Plaintiffs-Appellants,

                                                       v.

                         TRANSPORTATION OFFICE, INC., DBA

                              STRAW FOR SALE OHIO, ET AL.,

                                        Defendants-Appellee.

                         OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
                                          Case No. 23 MO 0015

                                     Civil Appeal from the
                         Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County, Ohio
                                      Case No. 2021-216

                                            BEFORE:
            William A. Klatt, Retired Judge of the Tenth District Court of Appeals,
                                     Sitting by Assignment,
                          Cheryl L. Waite, Carol Ann Robb, Judges.

                                                JUDGMENT:
                                                  Affirmed.

 Atty. David A. Bosak, Bailey Javins & Carter, L.C., for Plaintiffs-Appellants and

 Atty. Maria Placanica, for Defendant-Appellee, Needs Farms, LLC.

                                         Dated: March 21, 2024
                                                                                                    –2–

 KLATT, J.

        {¶1}    Appellants, Jeremy and Crystal Miller (husband and wife), appeal from the
July 13, 2023 judgment of the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas granting
Appellee’s, Needs Farms, LLC, motion for summary judgment. On appeal, Appellants
assert the trial court erred in granting Appellee’s motion for summary judgment.
Appellants specifically raise whether a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether
Appellee owned, leased, operated, loaded, controlled, and/or delivered a trailer pertaining
to Appellant Jeremy Miller’s injury, and as such, owed him a duty of care. Finding no
reversible error, we affirm.

                            FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

        {¶2}    On June 24, 2021, Appellants filed a complaint for negligence and loss of
consortium      against     Transportation      Office,    Inc.,   d/b/a    Straw     for    Sale   Ohio
(“Transportation”), and John Does one through 12. The complaint alleged that Appellant
Jeremy Miller sustained injuries on June 30, 2019 when he fell from a trailer he was
unloading on the job site of his employer, Precision Pipeline (“Precision”), in Clarington,
Ohio. Appellants specifically asserted: Appellant Jeremy Miller was unloading straw from
the back of the trailer; he fell out of the trailer; he injured his head and shoulder; they
claim his injuries were caused by the poor condition of the trailer which prohibited him
from being able to safely unload the bundles of straw; and that the party defendants,
collectively, were involved in the “ownership, operation, maintenance, leasing, and/or
loading of the subject trailer involved in the subject incident[.]” See (6/24/2021 Complaint,
p. 2). Transportation filed an answer on July 26, 2021.1 Appellee, an Ohio limited liability
company, answered the complaint as “John Doe” on April 20, 2022.
        {¶3}    On May 2, 2022, Appellants filed a motion for leave to amend their
complaint seeking to add Appellee as a named defendant. Appellee opposed the motion
one week later. However, on June 6, 2022, the trial court granted Appellants’ motion
allowing them to amend their complaint to assert claims against Appellee.

1 Appellants voluntarily dismissed their claims against Transportation on October 3, 2022.

Case No. 23 MO 0015
                                                                                         –3–

         {¶4}   In their amended complaint, Appellants alleged: Appellee delivered straw to
the job site where Appellant Jeremy Miller was allegedly injured; Appellee improperly
loaded the trailer with straw; the trailer was in poor condition making it difficult to unload
the straw; and as a result, caused Appellant Jeremy Miller to sustain a fall in the process.
Importantly, Appellants revealed that the incident report prepared by Precision identifies
the subject trailer from which Appellant Jeremy Miller fell as having Pennsylvania license
plate “PT-7235R.” (5/2/2022 Appellants’ Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint, p.
3, Exhibits C, D). A photo shows Appellant Jeremy Miller lying on the ground at the rear
of the trailer with Pennsylvania license plate “PT-7235R.” (Id., Exhibit D). Appellee filed
an answer to the amended complaint on June 21, 2022.
         {¶5}   On April 27, 2023, Appellee filed a motion for summary judgment asserting
it did not own the subject trailer from which Appellant Jeremy Miller fell and that Appellants
could not prove Appellee owed them any duty. It is undisputed that Appellee owns no
trailers with Pennsylvania license plates or which are licensed or registered in the State
of Pennsylvania. As stated, Appellee is an Ohio limited liability company and has no
trailers licensed or registered in Pennsylvania. Appellee never owned a trailer with
Pennsylvania license plate “PT-7235R.” (4/27/2023 Appellee’s Motion for Summary
Judgment, Exhibit C).         In fact, according to the Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation, the subject license plate is registered to non-party Faithful Farms in
Uniontown, Pennsylvania and was first titled on October 27, 2000. (Id., Exhibit D).
Appellants filed a response in opposition on June 2, 2023. Appellee filed a reply 12 days
later.
         {¶6}   On July 13, 2023, the trial court granted Appellee’s motion for summary
judgment.
         {¶7}   Appellants filed a timely appeal raising one assignment of error.

                                 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

         THE MONROE COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ERRED IN
         GRANTING DEFENDANT NEEDS FARMS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY
         JUDGMENT.

Case No. 23 MO 0015
                                                                                           –4–

       {¶8}    In their sole assignment of error, Appellants argue the trial court erred in
granting Appellee’s motion for summary judgment. Appellants specifically raise whether
“a genuine issue of material fact exist[s] as to whether Defendant Needs Farms owned,
leased, operated, loaded, controlled, and/or delivered the ‘subject trailer’ that pertains to
plaintiff’s injury, and as such, owed plaintiff a duty of care?” (10/10/2023 Appellants’ Brief,
p. 8). Appellants stress that “ownership of the subject trailer is not dispositive of this case
and does not single-handedly entitle [A]ppellee to summary judgment.” (11/13/2023
Appellants’ Reply Brief, p. 1).     Appellants maintain “[t]he evidence clearly supports
[A]ppellants’ position that [Appellee] either operated, leased, delivered, loaded and/or
otherwise had some control over the subject trailer, which in turn, creates the duty in this
case.” (Id.)

       An appellate court conducts a de novo review of a trial court’s decision to
       grant summary judgment, using the same standards as the trial court set
       forth in Civ.R. 56(C). Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 105,
       671 N.E.2d 241 (1996). Before summary judgment can be granted, the trial
       court must determine that: (1) no genuine issue as to any material fact
       remains to be litigated, (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a
       matter of law, (3) it appears from the evidence that reasonable minds can
       come to but one conclusion, and viewing the evidence most favorably in
       favor of the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made,
       the conclusion is adverse to that party. Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50
       Ohio St.2d 317, 327, 364 N.E.2d 267 (1977). Whether a fact is “material”
       depends on the substantive law of the claim being litigated. Hoyt, Inc. v.
       Gordon & Assoc., Inc., 104 Ohio App.3d 598, 603, 662 N.E.2d 1088 (8th
       Dist.1995).

       “(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 which
       demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of fact on a material element
       of the nonmoving party’s claim.” (Emphasis deleted.) Dresher v. Burt, 75
       Ohio St.3d 280, 296, 662 N.E.2d 264 (1996). If the moving party carries its

Case No. 23 MO 0015
                                                                                            –5–

      burden, the nonmoving party has a reciprocal burden of setting forth specific
      facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Id. at 293, 662 N.E.2d
      264. In other words, when presented with a properly supported motion for
      summary judgment, the nonmoving party must produce some evidence to
      suggest that a reasonable factfinder could rule in that party’s favor. Brewer
      v. Cleveland Bd. of Edn., 122 Ohio App.3d 378, 386, 701 N.E.2d 1023 (8th
      Dist.1997).

      The evidentiary materials to support a motion for summary judgment are
      listed in Civ.R. 56(C) and include the pleadings, depositions, answers to
      interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of evidence, and
      written stipulations of fact that have been filed in the case. In resolving the
      motion, the court views the evidence in a light most favorable to the
      nonmoving party. Temple, 50 Ohio St.2d at 327, 364 N.E.2d 267.

Doe v. Skaggs, 7th Dist. Belmont No. 18 BE 0005, 2018-Ohio-5402, ¶ 10-12.

      In order to establish negligence, it is fundamental that the party seeking
      recovery must show the existence of a duty on the part of the one sued,
      failure to perform the duty, and that an injury resulted from this
      failure. Linker v. Xpress Fuel Mart, Inc., 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 17 MA 172,
      2018-Ohio-5404,       ¶   9.    The     issue   of   whether    a duty exists    in
      a negligence action is a question of law. Laughlin v. Auto Zone Stores,
      Inc., 7th Dist. Mahoning No. 08 MA 10, 2008-Ohio-4967, ¶ 11.

Watkins v. Alwishah, 7th Dist. Columbiana No. 20 CO 0018, 2021-Ohio-3589, ¶ 23.

      {¶9}   “In    the   context    of   a   negligence   claim,    duty   is   the   threshold
issue. See Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., 99 Ohio St.3d 79, 2003-Ohio-2573, 788 N.E.2d
1088, ¶ 13. Where there is no duty, there can be no negligence.” Kumar v. Sevastos,
8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 109795, 2021-Ohio-1885, ¶ 28.
      {¶10} In order to state a viable negligence claim against Appellee, Appellants
needed to prove that Appellee owed a duty to them, that Appellee breached that duty,
and that the breach proximately caused the injury. The record is clear, however, that

Case No. 23 MO 0015
                                                                                                  –6–

Appellants cannot prove Appellee owed them any duty as they cannot prove Appellee
owned, maintained, or controlled the subject trailer from which Appellant Jeremy Miller
fell. Absent a relationship or any control, there can be no duty on behalf of Appellee. As
a result, Appellee cannot be held liable to Appellants for negligence.
        {¶11} Appellants stress during the requisite 90-day time-period surrounding this
incident, Precision invoices reveal the only possible entities the subject trailer could be
affiliated with were Transportation and Appellee. Appellant Jeremy Miller indicated the
only entities that delivered straw to Precision’s yard were Transportation and Appellee.
(6/2/2023 Appellants’ Response in Opposition to Appellee’s Motion for Summary
Judgment, Exhibit C, Deposition of Jeremy Miller, p. 35).                     Appellants note that
Transportation had no involvement with the subject trailer and was voluntarily dismissed
as a party defendant. Thus, Appellants’ claim “based on process of elimination alone, the
only possible entity left that could potentially be affiliated with the subject trailer is
[A]ppellee[.]” (11/13/2023 Appellants’ Reply Brief, p. 2). In addition, Appellants assert
“there is evidence that the subject trailer was [the] property of Bostelman Farms, and that
[Appellee] purchased straw from Bostelman Farms during this time period in 2019[.]” 2
(Id.)
        {¶12} Appellants want this court to conclude that because Appellee delivered
loads of straw in other trailers to the same job site necessarily implies it must have
maintained or controlled the subject trailer here despite Appellee’s uncontroverted
position it did not own, maintain, or control the trailer. This court, however, will not
entertain the speculation proposed by Appellants. See Jacobs v. Dye Oil, LLC, 7th Dist.
Monroe No. 18 MO 0020, 2019-Ohio-4085, ¶ 73 (a motion for summary judgment cannot
be defeated by mere speculation or possibility). This court also will not speculate that
Appellee owed Appellants any duty of care in the maintenance of a trailer that it did not
own, use, or control. (Id.)
        {¶13} Appellants claim Steve Needs (“Needs”), co-owner of Appellee, testified to
purchasing straw from Bostelman Farms in 2019. Appellants fail to mention, however,

2 Appellants’ counsel attempts to create an issue of fact by pointing to a screenshot of a website that

purportedly connected Bostelman Farms to the subject trailer several years before the accident. However,
as Appellants’ counsel conceded during oral argument, his reference to the screenshot of the website is
not in the form of Civ.R. 56(C) evidence, and therefore, cannot be considered.

Case No. 23 MO 0015
                                                                                           –7–

that Needs further testified that Bostelman Farms has never delivered straw to Appellee
in one of Bostelman’s trailers and Appellee has never attached one of its tractors to
Bostelman’s trailers. (4/27/2023 Appellee’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Exhibit C,
11/15/2022 Deposition of Steve Needs, p. 52).
       {¶14} Appellee currently owns 106 trailers and seven tractors. (Id. at p. 15-16).
Needs recalled making deliveries to Precision’s Clarington, Ohio yard. (Id. at p. 22-23).
Needs stated Appellee does not own and never owned trailers with Pennsylvania tags.
(Id. at p. 31).    Specifically, Needs indicated Appellee never owned a trailer with
Pennsylvania license plate “PT-7235R.” (Id. at p. 31-32). Needs does not know and does
not remember Appellant Jeremy Miller. (Id. at p. 47-48). Needs said Bostelman Farms
does the same type of work as Appellee and supplies Appellee with straw. (Id. at p. 50-
51).
       {¶15} Appellants also cite to the affidavit of Scott Bostelman, Member of
Bostelman Farms, for the proposition that it contains circumstantial evidence upon which
reasonable minds could conclude Appellee delivered straw to Appellant Jeremy Miller’s
worksite in the subject trailer. (6/2/2023 Appellants’ Response in Opposition to Appellee’s
Motion for Summary Judgment, Exhibit F, 9/23/2023 Affidavit of Scott Bostelman). In
fact, however, Scott Bostelman’s affidavit supports Appellee’s position it never leased,
rented, purchased, or borrowed any of Bostelman’s trailers and it never conducted
business with Bostelman Farms related to the purchase or delivery of straw to Precision
in 2019. (Id.)
       {¶16} Again, according to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, the
subject license plate is registered to non-party Faithful Farms in Uniontown, Pennsylvania
and was first titled on October 27, 2000. (4/27/2023 Appellee’s Motion for Summary
Judgment, Exhibit D). As Appellants’ arguments are based on conjecture, they do not
raise a genuine issue of material fact.
       {¶17} Upon consideration, the record reveals Appellee did not own, maintain, or
control the subject trailer from which Appellant Jeremy Miller fell, identified by
Pennsylvania license plate “PT-7235R.” In addition, Appellee did not owe Appellants any
duty, and in turn, did not breach any duty. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in granting
Appellee’s motion for summary judgment.

Case No. 23 MO 0015
                                                                                   –8–

                                   CONCLUSION

      {¶18} For the foregoing reasons, Appellants’ sole assignment of error is not well-
taken. The July 13, 2023 judgment of the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas
granting Appellee’s motion for summary judgment is affirmed.

Waite, J., concurs.

Robb, P.J., concurs.

Case No. 23 MO 0015
[Cite as Miller v. Transp. Office, Inc., 2024-Ohio-1104.]

          For the reasons stated in the Opinion rendered herein, the assignment of error
 is overruled and it is the final judgment and order of this Court that the judgment of the
 Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County, Ohio, is affirmed. Costs to be taxed against
 the Appellants.
          A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate
 in this case pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. It is ordered that
 a certified copy be sent by the clerk to the trial court to carry this judgment into
 execution.

                                         NOTICE TO COUNSEL

          This document constitutes a final judgment entry.