 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mays v. Taylor12/14/2001
181). When Taylor refused, Mays apparently leaned over the front seat, grabbed the steering wheel, and pulled it toward the right side of the road. (Tr. pp. 183-186). Taylor jerked the wheel toward the left, wrenching it out of Mays' grasp. The vehicle crossed over the westbound lanes and into oncoming traffic. It struck the front end of a minivan and crashed into a telephone pole. (Tr. pp. 186-190). Ernst, Mays and Rupert catapulted from the vehicle and perished.
Both Morgan and Taylor survived. Taylor, who had a blood alcohol level of 0.13 at the time of the incident, was arrested. On October 30, 1998, Taylor entered guilty pleas to three counts of aggravated vehicular homicide in violation of R.C. §2903.06 (A)(B) & (C). (Plaintiff's Exh. 19).
A variety of lawsuits sprang from this incident. The present appeal addresses the Mays' wrongful death action against Taylor and their claim against Appellant for uninsured motorist coverage as provided under their Allstate insurance policy. The matter went to trial on July 31, 2000. After opening statements, Appellee asked the trial court to direct a finding that Taylor was reckless as a matter of law.
The trial court deferred ruling on the motion until both sides had rested. The court then concluded that Taylor's conduct was reckless. As a result, the trial court held, Allstate's allegations of contributory (actually comparative) negligence on the part of Curtis Mays was, "not a justiciable issue in this case." (Judgment Entry, August 1, 2000).
The case went to the jury on the issues of proximate cause and damages. The jury concluded that Taylor's operation of the vehicle was a direct and proximate cause of Curtis Mays' death and awarded Appellee damages totaling $250,000. With respect to any role Curtis Mays may have played in the accident, the jury concluded that Curtis Mays' had not operated the vehicle. The court entered judgment on the verdict on August 1, 2000.
The trial court subsequently reduced the damage award to $200,000, to reflect what it concluded was Appellant's maximum potential obligation for uninsured motorist coverage under the policy. The trial court also ordered Appellant to pay Appellee prejudgement interest pursuant to R.C. §1343.03(A) accruing from April 6, 1998, the date on which it first denied Appellee's uninsured motorist claim.
Appellant now appeals from the trial court's decision and raises three assignments of error. For ease of understanding, this Court will address Appellant's second assignment of error last.
Appellant contends in its first assignment of error:
"The trial court erred to the prejudice of Allstate in granting Mays' Motion for Directed Verdict and thereby refusing to submit the issue of comparative negligence to the jury."
Appellant maintains that the trial court erred when it granted Appellee's motion for a directed verdict on the issue of Taylor's recklessness and thereafter precluded the jury from considering the issue of Curtis Mays' comparative negligence.
Based on the record herein, Appellant's first assignment of error is not well-taken. This Court subjects the trial court's decision to grant a directed verdict to de novo review. Abbott v. Jarrett Reclamation Serv., Inc. (1999), 132 Ohio App.3d 729, 738. The de novo standard of review essentially requires us to re-examine the matter, using the same standard the trial court used when it ruled on the issue. Under Civil Rule 50(A)(4), a motion for directed verdict is properly granted where, after construing the evidence most strongly in favor of the nonmoving party, the trial court finds that reasonable minds could come to but one concl
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|