Hollingshead v. Utility Solutions of Ohio, Inc.

Summary

The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Utility Solutions of Ohio, Inc. and its employees in a negligence action arising from a vehicle collision with a utility truck stopped in the plaintiff's lane of travel. The court held that the plaintiff violated Ohio's assured-clear-distance statute and failed to establish genuine issues of material fact concerning the vehicle's discernibility, the defendants' alleged negligence, or proximate cause. The court also upheld the trial court's decision to strike portions of the plaintiff's affidavit, a crash report, and training materials.

Holdings

1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by striking paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 16 of Hollingshead's affidavit because those statements addressed events after the point at which she testified that she no longer remembered what occurred.
2. The trial court properly struck the Ohio State Highway Patrol crash report and Utility Solutions training materials because counsel's affidavit did not establish personal knowledge or sufficient evidentiary foundation for the documents.
3. Summary judgment for defendants was proper because the evidence established that Hollingshead collided with a stationary object ahead in her path that did not suddenly appear and was reasonably discernible; reasonable minds could only conclude that she violated R.C. 4511.21(A).
4. Hollingshead failed to produce evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether R.C. 4511.66 applied, whether defendants negligently violated it, or whether any such negligence proximately caused the collision.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by striking portions of Hollingshead's affidavit that contradicted her deposition testimony.
2. Whether the trial court properly struck the Ohio State Highway Patrol crash report and Utility Solutions training materials because the supporting affidavit lacked personal knowledge and authentication.
3. Whether summary judgment was proper on the claim that defendants' vehicle was not reasonably discernible under Ohio's assured-clear-distance-ahead statute.
4. Whether the evidence created a genuine issue of material fact concerning defendants' alleged violation of R.C. 4511.66 and negligence.
5. Whether any alleged negligence by defendants was a proximate cause of the collision.

Disposition

affirmed