Manon v. Univ. of Toledo
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Manon v. Univ. of Toledo, 2005-Ohio-3331.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO www.cco.state.oh.us MARSHA E. MANON : Plaintiff : v. : CASE NO. 2003-09840 Judge J. Craig Wright Magistrate Anderson Renick : JUDGMENT ENTRY THE UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO Defendant : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : {¶ 1} This case was tried to a magistrate of the court. On April 14, 2005, the magistrate issued a decision recommending judgment for defendant. {¶ 2} Civ.R. 53(E)(3)(a) states: A party may file written objections to a magistrate s decision within fourteen days of the filing of the decision, regardless of whether the court has adopted the decision pursuant to Civ.R. 53(E)(4)(C). {¶ 3} On April 28, 2005, plaintiff *** filed the following objections: {¶ 4} 1) The magistrate failed to give due consideration to the facts and testimony set forth by the plaintiff, and gave undue weight to the facts and testimony set forth by defendant; {¶ 5} 2) The magistrate ignores the well-settled proposition of law that an individual is not required to constantly look down while walking; {¶ 6} 3) The magistrate erred in applying the standard for negligence found in Johnson v. Wagner Provision Co. (1943), 141 Ohio St. 584. Case No. 2003-09840 -2- JUDGMENT ENTRY {¶ 7} Considering the third objection first, plaintiff asserts that the magistrate failed to consider changes that have occurred in the law of premises liability in the 62 years since the Johnson case was decided by the Supreme Court of Ohio. The basic elements of proof in a slip-and-fall case, as set forth by the Supreme Court of Ohio in Johnson, supra, have not changed. Indeed, on page three of the decision, the magistrate cites Evans v. Armstrong (Sept. 23, 1999), Franklin App. No. 99AP-17, in setting out the elements of proof in a slip-and-fall case. cited with approval. In Evans, the Johnson case was Therefore, the court finds that the magistrate applied the relevant law as it exists in Ohio when deciding this case, and plaintiff s third objection is OVERRULED. {¶ 8} In her second objection, plaintiff asserts that the magistrate ignored well-settled law, and diminishes the nature and gravity of plaintiff s testimony by finding that the plaintiff was in error by looking at other students and not looking directly at the ground. Upon interpretation of review, the the court magistrate s finds that decision is plaintiff s in error. Accordingly, plaintiff s second objection is OVERRULED. {¶ 9} In plaintiff s first objection, plaintiff challenges several of the magistrate s findings of fact and conclusions of law. {¶ 10} First, plaintiff argues that the magistrate misconstrued plaintiff s testimony in finding that plaintiff assumed she tripped over a floor mat and in concluding that plaintiff did not sufficiently prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the mat caused her fall. Upon review of the evidence, the court finds that the magistrate s findings and conclusions are supported by the greater weight of the evidence and by the law. Moreover, the Case No. 2003-09840 -3- JUDGMENT ENTRY magistrate also concluded, in the alternative, that [e]ven if plaintiff had proven that the floor mat caused her fall, she failed to establish the second and third elements of the Johnson test ***. {¶ 11} Secondly, plaintiff asserts that the magistrate erred when he found that the glare from the sun prevented her from looking down as she walked into the building. Upon review, the magistrate s finding is consistent with the testimony adduced at trial. {¶ 12} Finally, plaintiff contends that the magistrate erred by affording undue weight to the testimony of defendant s custodial/maintenance staff and by discounting the testimony of plaintiff s expert witness. Upon review, the court finds that the magistrate considered the testimony of all three witnesses in concluding that the cleaning and maintenance schedules followed by defendant s employees, while not strictly in accordance with those recommended by plaintiff s expert, were nonetheless reasonable. {¶ 13} For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff s first objection is OVERRULED. {¶ 14} Upon review of the record, the magistrate s decision, and plaintiff s objections, the court finds that the magistrate both correctly analyzed the issues and applied the law to the facts. Therefore, the objections are OVERRULED and the court adopts the magistrate s decision and recommendation as its own, including the findings of fact and conclusions of law Judgment is rendered in favor of defendant. assessed against plaintiff. contained therein. Court costs are The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. Case No. 2003-09840 -4- JUDGMENT ENTRY ________________________________ J. CRAIG WRIGHT Judge Entry cc: Marc G. Williams-Young Kevin J. Cooper 1000 Adams Street, Suite 200 Toledo, Ohio 43624-1507 Attorneys for Plaintiff Lisa M. Eschbacher Susan M. Sullivan Assistant Attorneys General 150 East Gay Street, 23rd Floor Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130 Attorneys for Defendant LP/MR/mdw Filed June 21, 2005 To S.C. reporter June 29, 2005
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
