September 29, 2022. Beverly Adams, a Partner in CRUG’s Cleveland Office, tried a motor vehicle accident case to verdict in Summit County, Ohio: Ljubomir Krivokuca v. Lee Sampson. Beverly convinced the jury to award just under $6k in non-economic damages—well under the plaintiff’s demand.  Another clear defense win.  Another excellent lawyer.  Another solid case with a positive outcome.  Congratulations to Beverly and her client.

September 2022.

Megan Stricker, a Partner in CRUG’s Cleveland Office, recentlytried a motor vehicle accident case to jury verdict in Geauga County, Ohio:Edward Taton, et al. v. Thaddeus Brennan, et al.  Despite the plaintiff claiming tens of thousands of dollars in economic and non-economic damages in an admitted liability case, Megan convinced the jury to award just under $11k, well below both the plaintiff’s demand and the parties settlement discussions.  A clear defense win. Right lawyer.  Right case. Right outcome.  Congratulations to Megan and her client.

In Cerne, et al. v. VanCuren Services, Inc., et al., Lake C.P. No. 21CVV000731 (March 9, 2022), after a 3-day jury trial Patrick M. Roche received a defense verdict for a tree service company and its employee that had a negligence action brought against them by a landscaper who sustained injuries when his hand was crushed in the gate of a company dump truck.

Our client delivered a truckload of mulch to the plaintiff.  The plaintiff’s hand was crushed while shoveling mulch out of the back of the dump truck.  Plaintiff alleged that our client negligently operated the truck bed which caused the gate to crush plaintiff’s hand.

Pat successfully argued the affirmative defenses of contributory negligence and assumption of the risk.  The jury determined that, while our client may have been negligent, his negligence was not the direct and proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries.

In Kumar v. Sevastos, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.109795, 2021-Ohio-1885, Ron Ziehm and Jaren Webster successfully defended the owner of an indoor soccer facility against a negligence action brought by a soccer player who sustained injuries when he collided with the wall during an indoor soccer game.

The Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant-owner of the facility based on the open-and-obvious doctrine and the doctrine of primary assumption of risk. The Eighth Appellate District affirmed.

Notably, the Eighth District determined that the defendant-owner owed no duty to warn the plaintiff of any danger posed by the open-and-obvious boundary wall, and that no “attendant circumstances” created an exception to the open-and-obvious doctrine. Specifically, the court found that neither a slide-tackle by an opposing player nor the boundary wall itself (alleged to be a “negligent safety design”) were “attendant circumstances” because neither diverted the plaintiff’s attention or otherwise caused him to fail to perceive the open-and-obvious wall.