Narrative Opinion Summary
This case involves an appeal by a delivery driver, Gillespie, who was bitten by a dog while on the premises of appellee Waterwheel Farms, Inc. The trial court granted summary judgment for the appellee, asserting that Gillespie was a criminal trespasser and thus not entitled to strict liability protection under R.C. 955.28(B). Gillespie contended that he was an invitee, as he was performing a delivery requested by the appellee, and that he had not seen any warning signs due to poor lighting. The trial court's decision was based on the presence of a warning sign and Gillespie's unauthorized entry into a building. However, the appellate court found that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding Gillespie's status as an invitee or licensee, and the adequacy and visibility of the warning signs. The court distinguished this case from previous decisions by emphasizing the nature of the premises as a commercial setting and the potential implicit permission to enter. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's summary judgment, remanding the case for further proceedings to ascertain Gillespie's legal status at the time of the dog bite and the applicability of strict liability under the statute.
Legal Issues Addressed
Criminal Trespass as an Affirmative Defensesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court concluded that Gillespie was a trespasser due to a warning sign, but the appellate court found genuine issues of material fact regarding his invitee status, thus negating the trespass defense.
Reasoning: The court applied an affirmative defense of criminal trespass under R.C. 955.28(B) to the strict liability claim, reasoning that there were no genuine issues of material fact.
Invitee Status and Premises Liabilitysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court determined that Gillespie's status as an invitee or licensee was supported by evidence, countering the trial court's criminal trespass finding.
Reasoning: Gillespie was on the appellees’ property as an invitee to fill a holding tank but entered the building for his own purpose of obtaining a signature on a bill of lading.
Strict Liability under R.C. 955.28(B)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court found that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment against Gillespie, as he was not committing a criminal trespass when bitten by the dog, thus the strict liability statute should apply.
Reasoning: The appellate review indicates that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment against Gillespie concerning R.C. 955.28(B), which holds dog owners liable for injuries caused by their dogs, except when the injured party was committing or attempting criminal trespass.
Visibility and Adequacy of Warning Signssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that the visibility and adequacy of warning signs were in dispute, thereby affecting the determination of Gillespie's legal status on the property.
Reasoning: Testimony indicated the dogs might not have been behind the workshop door that contained a warning sign, and Gillespie described the vestibule as dark, complicating visibility of any warnings.