 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mays v. Taylor12/14/2001
usion with respect to a particular determinative issue. Civ.R. 50(A)(4).
Appellant maintains that the trial court misapplied the aforementioned standard when it found, as a matter of law, that Taylor had been reckless. Appellant argues that in doing so, the trial court necessarily disregarded the testimony of witnesses and thereby usurped the jury's function.
Appellant is mistaken in its contention here. Even viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Appellant and Taylor, there was an abundance of undisputed evidence adduced at trial to support the court's conclusion that Taylor acted recklessly and that no reasonable person could conclude otherwise.
In Thompson v. McNeill (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 102, the Ohio Supreme Court adopted the following definition of "recklessness":
"The actor's conduct is in reckless disregard of the safety of others if he does an act or intentionally fails to do an act which it is his duty to the other to do, knowing or having reason to know of facts which would lead a reasonable man to realize, not only that his conduct creates an unreasonable risk of physical harm to another, but also that such risk is substantially greater than that which is necessary to make his conduct negligent." 2 Restatement of the Law 2d, Torts (1965), at 587, Section 500.
The Restatement further distinguishes between intentional conduct and recklessness as follows:
"While an act to be reckless must be intended by the actor, the actor does not intend to cause the harm which results from it * * * the risk must itself be an unreasonable one under the circumstances." Comments a & f, Sec. 500, pp. at 588, 590.
The undisputed evidence adduced at trial shows that Taylor's conduct readily falls within this definition.
To begin with, Taylor pleaded guilty to the offense of aggravated vehicular homicide in connection with the incident. Under Ohio's Rules of Criminal Procedure, a guilty plea is a complete admission of guilt. Crim .R. 11. Guilty pleas in criminal proceedings are traditionally treated as admissions in civil causes of action predicated on the same underlying facts. State ex rel. Kendzia v. Carney (1969), 20 Ohio St. 2d 37, 40; and Shepperd v. Mack (1980), 68 Ohio App.2d 95, 105.
Recklessness is the requisite culpable mental state for the offense of aggravated vehicular homicide. The Ohio Revised Code provides that one commits the offense of aggravated vehicular homicide by recklessly causing another's death during the operation of a motorized vehicle. R.C. §2903.06. The Code further describes a reckless actor as follows:
"* * * with heedless indifference to the consequences, he perversely disregards a known risk that his conduct is likely to cause a certain result or is likely to be of a certain nature. A person is reckless with respect to circumstances when, with heedless indifference to the consequences, he perversely disregards a known risk that such circumstances are likely to exist." R.C. §2901.22(C). Accordingly, the trial court's directed verdict is justified, at least in part, by Taylor's own admission that she had conducted herself recklessly in connection with the incident.
The trial court also concluded that Taylor was reckless based on testimony that she operated her vehicle in an irregular manner just before the accident occurred. Appellant argues the trial court's finding necessarily discounted the testimony elicited from Morgan. A review of Morgan's deposition, however, reflects that his testimony largely corroborates the court's finding that Taylor was reckless.
Morgan testified that from the time he entered the vehicle un
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.
|
|