Court Opinion

ID: 9908038
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-07 17:08:32.15732+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:21:31.397081
License: Public Domain

[Cite as Hawkins v. K&D Mgt., L.L.C., 2023-Ohio-4421.]

                             COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

                            EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                               COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

WILBUR HAWKINS, ET AL.,                              :
         Plaintiffs-Appellants,                      :
                                                            No. 112648
                v.                                   :

K&D MANAGEMENT, LLC,                                 :
        Defendant-Appellee.                          :

                              JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

                JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED
                RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: December 7, 2023

            Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
                                Case No. CV-21-948186

                                          Appearances:

                Law Office of J. Michael Goldberg LLC, and J. Michael
                Goldberg; The Law Offices of Michael L. Eisner, LLC, and
                Michael L. Eisner, for appellants.

                Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, and
                David J. Fagnilli, for appellee.

MARY J. BOYLE, J.:

                  Plaintiffs-appellants, Wilber Hawkins (“Hawkins”) and Debra Massa

(“Massa”) (collectively referred to as “plaintiffs”), appeal the trial court’s judgment

denying their partial motion for summary judgment and granting summary
judgment in favor of defendant-appellant, K&D Management, LLC (“K&D”).

Plaintiffs raise the following two assignments of error for review:

      Assignment of Error I: The trial court erred in denying [plaintiffs’]
      motion for partial summary judgment.

      Assignment of Error II: The trial court erred in granting [K&D]’s
      motion for summary judgment.

              For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

I. Facts and Procedural History

              This appeal arises from injuries plaintiffs (tenants) sustained while

using an elevator in their apartment building on July 30, 2016, which is owned and

operated by K&D (landlord). Plaintiffs filed a complaint against K&D in June 2018

alleging that the elevator in Harbor Crest, their apartment building, quickly

descended and came to an abrupt stop. In response, K&D filed an answer and a

third-party complaint against ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corporation (“TKE”), the

company who maintained and serviced the elevator. The matter proceeded with

discovery, and both K&D and TKE filed respective motions for summary judgment.

Before either motion was ruled upon, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their

complaint in May 2020.

              One year later, in May 2021, plaintiffs refiled their complaint, which

is the matter before us, naming K&D as the sole defendant. K&D did not file a third-

party complaint against TKE in the refiled case. In their complaint, plaintiffs, who

are husband and wife, alleged that at approximately 9:00 a.m., they pressed the

elevator call button on the 14th floor of their apartment building to summon the
elevator. They entered into Elevator No. 1 and Hawkins pressed the “B” button,

which would take them to the basement where their car was parked. The elevator

started to descend but then stopped. Hawkins pressed the button again, and the

elevator resumed its descent before stopping again. They were unable to exit the

elevator because the button for opening the door was not functional.

               Hawkins continued to press the basement button, and every time, the

elevator would move a little and then stop. When he held his hand on the button,

he noticed that it remained lit, and the elevator descended very slowly. When the

elevator reached the 10th floor, it accelerated quickly and rapidly fell several floors

before coming to a sudden, jarring halt. Moments later, it jolted up and then

stopped between floors. When they realized that the elevator was descending

uncontrollably, Massa grabbed onto the bar along the back of the elevator and

braced herself against Hawkins. Hawkins also used his cane to try to brace himself

for the impact. Massa was unable to withstand the force from the change in

acceleration to the abrupt stop and fell, striking her knees on the floor and fracturing

her right elbow on the metal bar she was holding onto for support. Hawkins used

his cane to press the emergency fire department call button and they remained

trapped in Elevator No. 1 for several minutes until the fire department arrived, shut

down the elevator, pried open the door, and rescued them. Afterwards, plaintiffs

went to the hospital to address their injuries. The elevator was taken out of service

after the incident.
               In their complaint, plaintiffs alleged that, as their landlord, K&D

owed them the duty under R.C. 5321.04(A) to keep the premises in a safe condition

and maintain all elevators in good and safe working condition. Plaintiffs’ complaint

asserted three causes of actions against K&D. In Count 1, the plaintiffs alleged K&D

was negligent for failing to maintain, operate, and repair Elevator No. 1 as required

by law, rendering Elevator No. 1 unfit and unsafe for use by passengers. Plaintiffs

further claimed that K&D was negligent because it knew or reasonably should have

known that Elevator No. 1 was unsafe and likely to malfunction, as it had several

times in the past. In Count 2, plaintiffs alleged loss of consortium as a result of

K&D’s negligence. In Count 3, plaintiffs sought a punitive-damage claim, alleging

that K&D’s conduct demonstrated malice and a conscious disregard for the rights

and safety of all passengers of Elevator No. 1.

               Following discovery, plaintiffs and K&D each filed respective motions

for summary judgment. Plaintiffs moved for a partial summary judgment on

liability only and K&D moved for summary judgment on all claims. K&D argued

that it was not negligent and there was no evidence that it had prior notice of any

similar issues relating to Elevator No. 1. In support of its motion, K&D attached the

affidavit of their expert, John Donnelly (“Donnelly”), an electrical engineer and

licensed elevator inspector.      Donnelly averred that he inspected the TKE

maintenance records and determined that K&D could not have anticipated or

prevented the failure that occurred and that the subject elevator was top-of-the-line

equipment, installed just four years prior to the incident. K&D further argued that
Elevator No. 1 could not have come to a crashing halt because, accordingly to

Donnelly, it was physically impossible for the elevator to have fallen at a high speed

due to several built-in safety mechanisms, the elevator’s maximum speed, and the

counterweight that prevents it from falling. K&D also relied on plaintiffs own

depositions in which they stated that during the five years they lived in Harbor Crest,

neither Hawkins nor Massa had been in a malfunctioning elevator. Both plaintiffs

testified that they had seen an elevator out of service from time to time, but they had

no knowledge as to the cause.

               Plaintiffs asserted three arguments in their motion for summary

judgment. First, plaintiffs argued that K&D is a common carrier as a matter of law

and owed an affirmative duty to protect plaintiffs as elevator passengers. Next,

plaintiffs claimed that K&D’s violation of R.C. 5321.04(A) constituted negligence per

se. Lastly, plaintiffs claimed that K&D was liable for any harm caused to them by

TKE’s negligence during its maintenance of Elevator No. 1.

               In support of their motion, plaintiffs attached the affidavit of K&D

maintenance technician Willie Moore (“Moore”).          Moore averred that he has

personally experienced the sudden drop and stop of the elevator. According to

Moore, elevators malfunctioned and entrapped passengers so often that K&D’s

management instructed its maintenance staff to stop calling the fire department

whenever an event took place.

               Plaintiffs also attached the affidavit of Michael Costa (“Costa”), their

elevator expert, who averred that the elevators in Harbor Crest had a long history of
malfunctioning, with at least 17 entrapments in the elevators. Costa concluded “to

a reasonable degree of elevator mechanics, engineering and maintenance certainty

that K&D’s failure to maintain the elevators and failure to properly identify and

repair defects of which it knew or reasonably should have known with the exercise

of ordinary care directly and proximately resulted in the sudden abrupt stop that

[plaintiffs] experienced on July 30, 2016.” (Costa affidavit, ¶ 11). Costa further

concluded that “K&D breached its duties which directly and proximately caused the

incident.” (Costa affidavit, ¶ 11). Costa explained that:

       The incident is most likely a result of the elevator “getting lost” in the
       hoistway due to a malfunctioning selector and/or selector relays.
       When the elevator “gets lost” it will go to a terminal floor (in this case
       the basement) to reset itself. While attempting to level into the floor,
       the motor limit timer (MLT) faulted out resulting in an entrapment
       between floors. Elevator selectors require thorough and systematic
       maintenance procedures be performed as recommended by the
       original equipment manufacturer. When selector maintenance is
       properly performed and relays/switches are adjusted adequately, the
       elevator “knows” the position of the car in the hoistway and functions
       correctly. The failure of the relay in the selector is most likely the cause
       of the abrupt stop.

(Costa affidavit, ¶ 4).

               In March 2023, the trial court denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial

summary judgment and granted K&D’s motion, dismissing all of plaintiffs’ claims.

In its judgment entry, the trial court detailed its reasoning, explaining that when

       construing the evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving
       parties, the court finds that there is no genuine issue as to any material
       fact and that reasonable minds could only reach the conclusion that
       plaintiff has failed to present direct evidence that an unsafe or
       dangerous condition existed with the elevator which plaintiffs allege
       caused them to fall and resulted in their injury. Nor have plaintiffs
      produced any evidence that defendant K&D knew of or should have
      known of the particular unsafe or dangerous condition that they allege
      occurred and caused their injury with the said elevator. In light of this,
      the court determines that plaintiffs have failed to establish that K&D
      breached a duty owed to them and therefore, [K&D] is entitled to
      judgment as a matter of law on plaintiffs’ negligence, loss of consortium
      and punitive damages claims.

(Judgment entry, 03/24/23.)

              It is from this judgment that plaintiffs now appeal.

II. Law and Analysis

      A. Summary Judgment Standard of Review

              An appellate court reviews the grant or denial of summary judgment

de novo. Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 105, 671 N.E.2d 241 (1996).

In a de novo review, this court affords no deference to the trial court’s decision and

independently reviews the record to determine whether the denial of summary

judgment is appropriate. Hollins v. Shaffer, 182 Ohio App.3d 282, 2009-Ohio-2136,

912 N.E.2d 637, ¶ 12 (8th Dist.).

              Summary judgment is appropriate if (1) no genuine issue of any

material fact remains; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of

law; and (3) it appears from the evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one

conclusion, and construing the evidence most strongly in favor of the nonmoving

party, that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary

judgment is made. Id., citing State ex rel. Cassels v. Dayton City School Dist. Bd. of

Edn., 69 Ohio St.3d 217, 631 N.E.2d 150 (1994).
               The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of

demonstrating that no material issues of fact exist for trial. Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio

St.3d 280, 292-293, 662 N.E.2d 264 (1996). If the moving party fails to meet this

burden, summary judgment is not appropriate; if the moving party meets this

burden, the nonmoving party must then point to evidence of specific facts in the

record demonstrating the existence of a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Id.

at 293.

      B. Negligence, Notice, and R.C.5321.04

               Plaintiffs argument is essentially three-fold: (1) K&D, as the owner

and manager of a building that provides passenger elevators for tenants’ use, is a

common carrier as a matter of law who owes its elevator passengers an affirmative

duty of protection and is required to exercise the highest degree of care reasonably

required by the situation; (2) K&D’s violations of R.C. 5321.04(A)(4) constitute

negligence per se as a matter of law; and (3) K&D’s duties under R.C. 5321.04 are

nondelegable; therefore, K&D is liable for TKE’s negligence as a matter of law.1

               As a preliminary matter, we note that K&D does not dispute plaintiffs’

argument that it is a common carrier and, therefore, owes plaintiffs the duties set

forth in R.C. 5321.04(A) and its duties are nondelegable. K&D, however, contends

that prior notice is a prerequisite to establish negligence per se under R.C. 5321.04.

      1 Relevant to the instant case, R.C. 5321.04(A)(4) provides that “[a] landlord who

is a party to a rental agreement shall * * * [m]aintain in good and safe working order and
condition all electrical, plumbing, sanitary, heating, ventilating, and air conditioning
fixtures and appliances, and elevators, supplied or required to be supplied by the
landlord[.]”
Therefore, our discussion will focus on the issue germane to this appeal — are

plaintiffs required to prove prior notice to establish K&D’s negligence per se under

R.C. 5321.04(A)(4)? For the reasons that follow, we answer in the affirmative.

               Plaintiffs argue that the requirement of prior notice in a residential

landlord-tenant action involving common carrier liability will lead to an

inconsistent and absurd result when a claim under R.C. 5321.04(A) is grounded on

the recognized special relationship between a common carrier and its passenger.

Plaintiffs explain that if the highest degree of care requires a common carrier to

affirmatively protect passengers from dangers, then such dangers cannot exist but

for the common carrier’s own negligence. In other words, the only way a common

carrier can have notice of a dangerous condition is if a dangerous condition exists,

and the only way a dangerous condition can exist to provide that notice is if the

common carrier fails to affirmatively protect its passengers in the first place. Thus,

plaintiffs contend that requirement of prior notice will establish a standard which,

by its very nature, cannot be affirmative protection.

               K&D argues that plaintiffs provide no caselaw in support of their

position. Rather, K&D asserts that the caselaw supports its argument that a landlord

is not liable per se under R.C. 5321.04 if the landlord does not have prior notice of a

dangerous condition. K&D maintains that plaintiffs have not established notice in

the matter before us and, therefore, summary judgment is proper. We find K&D’s

argument more persuasive.
                 In Sikora v. Wenzel, 88 Ohio St.3d 493, 498, 727 N.E.2d 1277 (2000),

the Ohio Supreme Court clarified its prior decision in Shroades v. Rental Homes,

Inc., 68 Ohio St.2d 20, 427 N.E.2d 774 (1981), to the extent that Shroades was

ambiguous as to the source and nature of the notice requirement applicable to a

violation of a statute imposing negligence per se.2 The Sikora Court found that a

landlord will be excused from liability if it neither knew nor should have known of

the condition. Id. The Sikora Court held: “A landlord’s violation of the duties

imposed by R.C. 5321.04(A)(1) or 5321.04(A)(2) constitutes negligence per se, but a

landlord will be excused from liability under either section if he neither knew nor

should have known of the factual circumstances that caused the violation.

([Shroades], clarified.)” Id. at the syllabus.

                 Moreover, this court has previously addressed the issue raised by

plaintiffs and agreed that “[v]iolations of R.C. 5321.04(A)(4) are considered

negligence per se.” Sabolik v. HGG Chestnut Lake L.P., 180 Ohio App.3d 576, 2009-

Ohio-130, 906 N.E.2d 488, ¶ 13 (8th Dist.), citing McKenzie v. FSF Beacon Hill

Assocs., LLC, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 05AP1194, 2006-Ohio-6894, ¶ 11; Trammell

v. McDonald, 3d Dist. Defiance No. 4-04-15, 2004-Ohio-4805, ¶ 12. We noted,

however, that:

      It is important to recognize that negligence per se is not strict liability,
      but the legislative establishment of a standard of care, the violation of
      which constitutes negligence. Chambers v. St. Mary’s School, 82 Ohio

      2 In Shroades, the court held that “[a] landlord is liable for injuries, sustained on

the demised residential premises, which are proximately caused by the landlord’s failure
to fulfill the duties imposed by R.C. 5321.04. (Thrash v. Hill, 63 Ohio St.2d 178,
overruled.)” Id. at syllabus.
      St.3d 563, 565, 1998 Ohio 184, 697 N.E.2d 198. The plaintiff
      continues to bear the burden of proving a breach of the
      statutory standard of care. Morgan v. Mamone, Cuyahoga App.
      No. 87612, 2006-Ohio-6944, ¶ 19, citing Shroades [v. Rental Homes,
      Inc., 68 Ohio St.2d 20, 427 N.E.2d 774]. “[A] landlord will be
      excused from liability [for a statutory violation] if he
      neither knew nor should have known of the factual
      circumstances that caused the violation.” Sikora v. Wenzel, 88
      Ohio St.3d 493, 2000-Ohio-406, 727 N.E.2d 1277, syllabus. Moreover,
      “negligence per se does not dispense with a plaintiff’s obligation to
      prove that the breach of the duty was the proximate cause of the injury
      complained of, nor does it obviate a plaintiff’s obligation to
      prove that the landlord received actual or constructive
      notice of the condition causing the statutory violation.”
      Allstate Ins. Co. v. Henry, Butler App. No. CA2006-07-168, 2007-
      Ohio-2556, ¶ 11.

(Emphasis added.) Sabolik at ¶ 13; see also Mixon v. K&D Apt. Community Owners

& Mgrs., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104338, 2017-Ohio-98, ¶ 13 (upholding summary

judgment in favor of K&D where K&D offered substantial evidence to show that the

elevator was in proper working order before the incident and it had no knowledge

that the elevator had any mechanical defect prior to the incident, and the plaintiffs

offered nothing to rebut K&D’s evidence.).

               Thus, based on the foregoing, for plaintiffs to survive summary

judgment, they must demonstrate that K&D had prior notice of the malfunctioning

hazard in Elevator No. 1 in order to establish negligence per se under

R.C. 5321.04(A)(4).     Notwithstanding their argument that prior notice is not

required, plaintiffs also argue that they do, in fact, have proof of prior notice by K&D.

Plaintiffs, relying on Moore’s affidavit, argue that K&D had actual notice of Elevator

No. 1’s prior malfunctioning. Moore averred that
      This was not the first time this elevator malfunctioned. I myself have
      had the elevator drop while I was in it. It is not a good feeling. We
      always had problems [with] the elevators. It was an ongoing thing, and
      we got a lot of complaints about them from tenants.

      It got expensive for K&D to call the fire department because it
      happened so often. At one point I had been told by my supervisor to
      use the elevator key to let people out instead of calling the fire
      department. We were shown how to open the elevator door, but I could
      never get it open, so I never used the key. We were also shown where
      the elevator controls were on top of the building.

(Moore affidavit, ¶ 6-7.)

               Our court has addressed this notice issue in Moore v. Behringer

Harvard 600 Superior LP, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 96926, 2011-Ohio-6652. In

Moore, the plaintiff fell as she entered an elevator in a parking garage owned and

operated by defendant-Behringer Harvard due to the elevator floor being unlevel

with the entrance floor. Behringer Harvard moved for summary judgment arguing

that it did not have notice of the elevator misleveling. Behringer Harvard’s expert

in elevator maintenance and service reviewed the maintenance records for the

subject elevator and determined that regular maintenance examinations were

performed and defendant had no notice of problems with misleveling.

               The plaintiff argued that Behringer, a common carrier, had general

knowledge of “multiple mechanical problems with these elevators despite regular

maintenance and service is sufficient to put [Behringer Harvard] on notice that the

elevators present a danger to its passengers and some sort of warning was required.”

Id. at ¶ 7. The plaintiff included the affidavit of an employee, the general manager

of the Fifth Third Center for Behringer Harvard, which stated that the elevators had
experienced some mechanical problems in the past. The plaintiff also relied on her

husband’s testimony that there were times when one or both of the elevators would

be down.       The trial court granted Behringer Harvard’s motion for summary

judgment finding that the plaintiff ‘“failed to provide any direct evidence that the

garage elevators, under the control of defendant Behringer Harvard, presented a

dangerous condition (“elevator leveling”) that defendant knew existed or should

have known existed.”’ Id. at ¶ 8.

                On appeal, this court affirmed the trial court’s judgment finding that

knowledge of any known malfunction, such as a light out, the door not closing

properly, or stopping at the wrong floor, was not sufficient to create a genuine issue

of material fact as to whether Behringer Harvard had notice of the leveling issue

such that would preclude summary judgment. Id. at ¶ 18. We reasoned:

       [T]he mere fact that these malfunctions occurred in the past is
       insufficient to establish that Behringer Harvard should have known of
       a possible misleveling problem with Elevator No. G2. Indeed, the
       plaintiff failed to present any evidence to support this claim. Instead,
       the plaintiff’s argument essentially seeks to impose strict liability on
       Behringer Harvard because she was injured while using the elevator.
       This proposition, however, is not supported under the law.

Id. at ¶ 18.

                In Moore, we found our analysis in Hodges v. Gates Mills Towers

Apt. Co., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 77278, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 4477 (Sep. 28,

2000), to be analogous. In Hodges, the plaintiff alleged that the elevator misleveled,

causing her to fall and sustain injuries. She filed suit against the owner and operator

of the elevator, who moved for summary judgment on the grounds that it had no
actual or constructive notice of any misleveling problems associated with the

elevator. The trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and

this court affirmed, noting that plaintiff failed to rebut defendant’s evidence and

demonstrate that defendant “had actual or constructive notice of the mis-leveling

problem.” Id. at 10.

                Likewise, plaintiffs’ reliance here on Moore’s statements is lacking in

several ways.     First, Moore does not include any time frame as to when he

experienced “the elevator drop.” Moore signed his affidavit on November 7, 2022,

which is more than seven years after the incident. The timing is critical since any

experience after the July 30, 2016 incident would not constitute prior notice.

Second, while Moore’s affidavit generalizes about “the elevators” having “problems,”

he does not identify the extent of the problems that existed prior to the incident.

Lastly, Moore’s affidavit does not prove that K&D received prior notice of the

malfunction causing a statutory violation under R.C. 5321.04.

                At best, Moore’s affidavit provides evidence that at least one of the six

elevators in the apartment complex experienced issues at some time in the past. For

plaintiffs to survive summary judgment, however, it is not enough to establish that

K&D had notice of different issues with some of the apartment complex’s six

elevators in general. Rather, it is essential that plaintiffs prove the notice was

specific to the particular unsafe or dangerous condition which allegedly caused the

injury and, in the matter before us, that means the rapid fall and sudden stop of

Elevator No. 1.
                Plaintiffs also rely on evidence offered through Costa’s expert report

that K&D had notice of different issues with the elevator “acting up,” but this

evidence, even when viewed in a light most favorable to plaintiffs, is insufficient to

create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether K&D had notice of an

accelerated drop and sudden stop by Elevator No. 1, as plaintiffs alleged to be the

cause of their injuries. Costa does not identify in his report, his affidavit, nor his

deposition testimony any notice of accelerated dropping or sudden stop issues with

any of the elevators prior to the incident alleged by plaintiffs.

                In support of its motion for summary judgment, K&D submitted

evidence demonstrating that Elevator No. 1 was upgraded and modernized by

Edmonds Elevator in 2012. After the incident, K&D called for maintenance. That

same day, TKE inspected Elevator No. 1 and found that the motor timer limit

occurred, but could not duplicate the problem. Costa acknowledges this faulty

motor limit timer in his affidavit. Costa stated, this incident is most likely a result

of the motor limit timer “fault[ing] out resulting in an entrapment between floors.”

(Costa affidavit ¶ 4.)

                The motor limit timer is factory-set to turn the motor off after three

minutes in order to prevent the motor from overworking. According to Donnelly,

K&D’s expert:

      the motor limit timer control circuit monitors the running time of the
      motor. If the elevator motor does not turn off in a pre-determined
      amount of time, the elevator motor is stopped. This timer is factory set
      for 180 seconds. The motor limit timer circuit is not required by the
      Elevator Code. It is an additional option to protect the integrity of the
      motor. It is not required for safe operation of the elevator.

      This problem was occurring intermittently and TKE eventually found a
      few days later that replacing the DZ (door zone) relay fixed the problem
      based on the records that I reviewed. This repair was performed on
      August 5, 2016. There was one similar reported problem on July 29,
      2016 and TKE found the motor limit time tripped after the building
      called for service. TKE could not duplicate the problem and tested the
      elevator before returning it to service.

      ***

      If the * * * motor limit timer parameter is reached, then the elevator
      will come to a controlled electrical stop, similar to using a stop switch.

      ***

      The building has a full maintenance contract with TKE which provided
      services to regularly and systematically examine, clean, lubricate,
      adjust, repair, replace and test the elevator components. Records show
      that TKE provided services per their contract and the custom and
      practice in the industry.

(Donnelly letter, Nov. 28, 2022.)

              Donnelly opined that “[d]ue to the inherent design of the subject

elevator, it would not have been physically possible for the elevator to fall to the

ground at high speed as the plaintiffs testified in their depositions.” (Donnelly

affidavit, ¶ 3.) Donnelly explained that the elevator is designed with a pulley system

where it is attached to a counterweight that is 800 pounds heavier than the elevator

when it is empty. Therefore, Donnelly concluded that “with only two people in the

elevator, the principles of gravity establish that, even if the elevator motor and all

safety brakes failed, the elevator would go up, not fall down.” (Donnelly affidavit,

¶ 3.) Donnelly also concluded that if the elevator malfunctioned or exceeded the
rated speed of 350 feet per minute (4 m.p.h.) for any reason, it would “trip one of

the multiple built in safety mechanisms to stop the elevator.” (Donnelly affidavit,

¶ 3.) Donnelly explained that, in this instance, “[n]either the drive or the governor

was tripped during this event, so we know the elevator did not exceed a speed of 385

feet per minute.” (Donnelly affidavit, ¶ 3.) Donnelly further opined that “[e]levators

are complex electro-mechanical systems that can fail even with proper

maintenance” and “[t]here was nothing [K&D] could or should have done to prevent

this incident.” (Donnelly letter, Nov. 28, 2022.)

              Based on the foregoing, K&D submitted substantial evidence to

demonstrate that the elevator was in proper working order before the incident and

that it had no knowledge that the elevator had any mechanical defect prior to the

incident. Plaintiffs offered nothing to rebut this evidence. As a result, we conclude

that reasonable minds could find no genuine issue of material fact on the issue of

K&D’s liability and that the court did not err by granting K&D’s motion for summary

judgment. See Mixon, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 104338, 2017-Ohio-98, at ¶ 13.

              Having found that summary judgment is proper on the plaintiffs’

negligence claim, we likewise find that their loss of consortium and punitive

damages claims fail as a matter of law. Mota v. Gruszczynski, 197 Ohio App.3d 750,

2012-Ohio-275, 968 N.E.2d 631, ¶ 24 (8th Dist.), citing Bowen v. Kil-Kare, Inc., 63

Ohio St.3d 84, 585 N.E.2d 384 (1992) (if the underlying tort claim fails on the

merits, so does the loss of consortium claim); Armatas v. Aultman Health Found.,

5th Dist. Stark No. 2016CA00130, 2016-Ohio-7316, ¶ 23, citing Vickers v. Wren
Industries, Inc., 2nd Dist. Montgomery No. 20914, 2005-Ohio-3656, ¶63-65 (“A

punitive damages claim is a derivative action that must be dismissed where the

primary claim is subject to summary judgment.”).

               Accordingly, the first and second assignments of error are overruled.

III. Conclusion

               Plaintiffs seek to impose strict liability on K&D, as a common carrier

under R.C. 5321.04, because of the injuries they sustained while passengers in their

apartment complex’s elevator. This proposition, however, is not supported by the

law. Rather, to survive summary judgment, plaintiffs must prove that K&D had

prior notice of Elevator No. 1’s mechanical issues at the time of the incident to

establish K&D’s negligence per se under R.C. 5321.04. Plaintiffs offered no such

evidence. Therefore, plaintiffs failed to create a genuine issue of material fact and

reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion — summary judgment in K&D’s

favor is proper.

               Accordingly, judgment is affirmed.

      It is ordered that appellee recover from appellants costs herein taxed.

      The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

      It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment

into execution.
      A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

______________________
MARY J. BOYLE, JUDGE

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, P.J., and
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR