Login | April 26, 2024
9th District: Emotional distress claim should go forward
TRACEY BLAIR
Legal News Reporter
Published: August 17, 2015
A Wayne County trial court erred by preventing a 7-year-old boy from presenting evidence regarding his mental anguish due to witnessing his younger brother’s death, the 9th District Court of Appeals ruled recently.
Case summary states that 7-year-old Joshua Cline and his 3-year-old brother, Corey, were riding in their cousin’s SUV after church on Feb. 22, 2009, when their cousin, Dustin Geitgey, hit a patch of black ice and lost control of the vehicle.
Geitgey helped both children and his girlfriend out of the SUV after it veered off the road and flipped onto the passengers’ side in a ditch.
Meanwhile, as the four were standing near the road, another man – appellee Todd Stein - was driving about 25 mph when his car hit the same patch of black ice. Stein also lost control, and struck Corey, who died from his injuries.
Nine months later, the boys’ mother and estate administrator, Lauren Cline, filed a complaint in probate court against Stein for negligence for Corey’s death and Joshua’s mental anguish and bodily injuries. The Clines also sued their car insurance company for uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits, breach of contract and bad faith.
Stein filed a third-party complaint against Stacey Geitgey, the owner of the SUV, for negligent entrustment, and against the driver for contribution or indemnification.
Lauren Cline later released Stein and his insurance company from all actions after receiving a $100,000 payment. In 2010, the Wayne County probate judge approved a $100,000 payment for attorney fees and $200,000 distributions to each parent.
In 2012, Douglas Cline, the boys’ father, filed a civil suit against Stein in common pleas court, claiming his negligence caused Joshua to suffer physical injuries, plus mental pain from witnessing his brother’s death.
Stein filed a third-party complaint against Dustin Geitgey for contribution.
Stein and Geitgey filed motions for summary judgment, arguing the emotional distress claims should have been disposed of in probate court as part of the wrongful death action.
The trial court granted both defendants’ motions for summary judgment regarding punitive damages but denied it for the emotional distress issue relating to Corey’s death.
In a 2-1 opinion, the appellate court found the appellees were not entitled to summary judgment regarding Joshua’s claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress.
“By limiting Joshua’s emotional distress claim to include only such injuries that may have arisen `from his own separate physical injuries,’ the trial court discounted the validity under Ohio law that a bystander need not sustain contemporaneous physical injuries to maintain a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress,” 9th District Judge Donna J. Carr wrote.
However, the 9th District also concluded the trial court properly ruled Joshua cannot relitigate a claim for wrongful death even though he received no settlement money in probate court.
“The personal representative was charged with acting on behalf of all beneficiaries,” Carr stated. “That she agreed to a settlement that did not award any specified amount of compensatory damages to all statutory beneficiaries is not a matter properly before this Court for review in this appeal.”
Appellate Judge Carla Moore concurred.
Ninth District Judge Jennifer Hensal dissented, arguing she does not believe the panel has jurisdiction over the appeal since it is not a judgment or final order.
“In addition, I am concerned that the trial court’s entry does not contain any parameters about what evidence of Joshua’s emotional distress will or will not be permitted to be introduced at trial.”
The case is cited Cline v. Stein, 2015-Ohio-2979.