Seymour v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Seymour v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2004-Ohio-4721.]
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO
BRUCE SEYMOUR
:
Plaintiff
:
v.
:
CASE NO. 2001-09869
Judge J. Warren Bettis
Magistrate Steven A. Larson
:
JUDGMENT ENTRY
DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION
AND CORRECTION
:
Defendant
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
{¶1} This case was tried to a magistrate of the court. On June 22, 2004, the magistrate issued
a decision recommending judgment for plaintiff with a 40 percent reduction in any future damages
award to account for plaintiff’s own negligence.
{¶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). ***” Both defendant and plaintiff timely filed objections.
{¶3} Defendant filed four objections to the magistrate’s decision:
{¶4} “OBJECTION NO. 1:
{¶5} “The Magistrate erred, as a matter of law, in concluding that Defendant had not
adequately trained, warned, and instructed Plaintiff of an open and obvious hazard thereby barring
his recovery:
{¶6} “***
{¶7} “OBJECTION NO. 2:
{¶8} “The Magistrate erred, as a matter of law, in concluding that Plaintiff’s claim was not
barred by his assumption of the risk.
{¶9} “***
{¶10} “OBJECTION NO. 3:
Case No. 2001-09869
-2-
JUDGMENT ENTRY
{¶11} “The Magistrate erred, as a matter of law, in concluding that Plaintiff’s negligence
was not greater than that of the Defendant thereby barring his recovery.
{¶12} “***
{¶13} “OBJECTION NO. 4:
{¶14} “The Magistrates [sic] decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶15} “***.”
{¶16} Plaintiff filed two objections to the magistrate’s decision:
{¶17} “1.) The Magistrate erred in determining Seymour was 40% negligent, considering the
design and method of operation to feed various size heads or partial heads of lettuce into the
machine;
{¶18} “2.) The Magistrate’s finding of Seymour’s contributory negligence is against the
weight of the evidence as to the findings and amount.”
{¶19} Ultimately, both defendant and plaintiff are arguing that the magistrate’s decision was
against the weight of the evidence. After reviewing the record, trial transcript, exhibits, and the
magistrate’s decision, the court finds that the magistrate’s conclusions regarding both liability and
the apportionment of fault are supported by the greater weight of the evidence.
{¶20} Upon review of the record, the magistrate’s decision, and the objections, 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 contained therein.
{¶21} Judgment is rendered for plaintiff with a 40 percent reduction in any future damages
award.
{¶22} The court shall issue an entry in the near future scheduling a date for the trial on the
issue of damages.
________________________________
J. WARREN BETTIS
Judge
Case No. 2001-09869
-3-
JUDGMENT ENTRY
Entry cc:
Richard F. Swope
6504 East Main Street
Reynoldsburg, Ohio 43068-2268
Attorney for Plaintiff
William C. Becker
Assistant Attorney General
150 East Gay Street, 23rd Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130
Attorney for Defendant
LM/cmd
Filed September 2, 2004
To S.C. reporter September 7, 2004
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.
