Nickles Bakery, Inc. v. Estate of Molina
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Nickles Bakery, Inc. v. Estate of Molina, 2004-Ohio-4006.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT ALLEN COUNTY ALFRED NICKLES BAKERY, INC. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT CASE NO. 1-04-05 v. ESTATE OF NICO W. MOLINA, DECEASED OPINION DEFENDANT-APPELLEE CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Civil Appeal from Common Pleas Court JUDGMENT: Judgment Affirmed DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: August 2, 2004 ATTORNEYS: RONALD W. DOUGHERTY Reg. #0016894 MICHAEL A. THOMPSON Reg. #0016874 GREGORY D. SWOPE Reg. #0065123 4775 Munson Street, N.W. P. O. Box 36963 Canton, Ohio 44735-6963 For Appellant J. ALAN SMITH Attorney at Law Reg. #0041980 Case No. 1-04-05 P. O. Box 1217 Lima, Ohio 45802-1217 For Appellee, Molina Estate JAMES D. UTRECHT Attorney at Law Reg. #0015000 12 South Plumb Street Troy, Ohio 45373 For Appellee, Sherriff-Goslin Co. CUPP, J. {¶1} Plaintiff-appellant, Alfred Nickles Bakery, Inc., appeals the judgment of the Common Pleas Court of Allen County granting Sheriff-Goslin Company s motion for summary judgment. {¶2} Nico Molina ( Molina ) and Randy Marshall ( Marshall ) were employed as roofers for Sheriff-Goslin. On April 5, 2001, Molina and Marshall were assigned two roofing jobs at two separate sites. However, after completing the first job, Molina and Marshall, never went to the second job site, but rather, went to a bar. Later that same night, at approximately 10:50 p.m., Molina, while traveling on North Sugar Street in Bath Township in a Sheriff-Goslin Company truck, collided with a semi-truck owned by plaintiff-appellant, Alfred Nickles Bakery, Inc. ( appellant ). Marshall was a passenger in the truck at the time of the accident. Both Molina and Marshall were killed. The coroner s report revealed that Molina had a blood alcohol level of 0.38%. 2 Case No. 1-04-05 {¶3} On April 8, 2002, appellant filed a complaint against the Estate of Nico Molina and Sheriff-Goslin Company. Appellant prayed for relief against the Estate of Nico Molina in an amount in excess of $25,000 and also sought judgment against Molina s employer, Sheriff-Goslin Company, based upon the theory of respondeat superior. {¶4} Sheriff-Goslin Company filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the doctrine of respondeat superior is inapplicable to the case at bar because Molina and Marshall were not acting either within the course or scope of their employment at the time of the accident. On December 12, 2003, the trial court granted Sheriff-Goslin Company s motion for summary judgment. {¶5} The appellant now appeals the judgment of the trial court and sets forth one assignment of error for our review. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. I The trial court erred in granting Sheriff-Goslin Company s motion for summary judgment pursuant to Ohio Civil Rule 56 by finding as a matter of law that defendants, Nico Molina and Randall K. Marshall, were not acting within the scope of their employment with Sherriff-Goslin. {¶6} Our review of the record reveals that the trial court has thoroughly addressed all of the relevant factual and legal issues pertaining to this appeal in its judgment entry in which it granted Sheriff-Goslin Company s motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, for the purposes of ruling on appellant s assignment of 3 Case No. 1-04-05 error herein, we hereby adopt the well-reasoned final judgment entry of the trial court dated December 12, 2003, incorporated and attached hereto as Exhibit A, as our opinion in this case. {¶7} For the reasons stated in the final judgment entry of the trial court, attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit A, appellant s assignment of error is overruled and the judgment of the Common Pleas Court of Allen County is affirmed. Judgment affirmed. SHAW, P.J., and BRYANT, J., concur. 4 Case No. 1-04-05 5 Case No. 1-04-05 6 Case No. 1-04-05 7 Case No. 1-04-05 8 Case No. 1-04-05 9 Case No. 1-04-05 10 Case No. 1-04-05 11 Case No. 1-04-05 12
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.
