Welcome to The Briefcase

Commentary and analysis of Ohio criminal law and whatever else comes to mind, served with a dash of snark.  Continue Reading »

×

Case Update

Only one decision from the Ohio Supreme Court this week.  We all know that insurance doesn't cover intentional torts.  If you punch your neighbor in the mouth, your homeowner's policy isn't going to cover you.  But what if your kid punches the neighbor -- or, in this case, stabs her -- and the neighbor sues you for negligently supervising your kid?  That's the situation presented in Safeco Ins. Co v. White, and the court concludes that the definition of "occurrence" in the policy has to be construed from the standpoint of the individual insured:  while the kid's actions were unquestionably intentional, the parents' actions were merely negligent, and thus they were entitled to coverage.

While Safeco is nominally a 5-2 decision, it's really 4-3.  The focus of Justice Cupp in his concurrence, and in the dissent by Justice O'Donnell, joined by Justice Lundberg Stratton, was on exclusionary language of the policy (actually two:  a homeowners and an umbrella policy):  the former excluded coverage for injuries "arising out of any illegal act committed by... an insured," while the latter excluded injuries resulting from "any act... intended by any insured."  The dissenters found this unambiguously excluding coverage for all insureds if any of them acted intentionally.  Cupp found the provisions ambiguous, but helpfully suggested a phrasing that would not be.  Look for it to become a regular feature of policies, and the issue to be relitigated further.

On to the courts of appeals...

Criminal.  Defendant told to report to jail to begin serving sentence at 8:00 AM, doesn't show up until 11:00, court tacks an additional year on his sentence under RC 2949.06; 6th District reverses, says that where defendant voluntarily shows up, albeit late, he hasn't "escaped" within meaning of statute... Statements made by co-conspirator are admissible, even if conspiracy isn't one of charged offenses, says 1st District... 9th District reverses conviction because trial court erred in excusing juror for cause... 3rd District says that trial court lacked authority to order restitution be paid to humane society in cruelty to animals prosecution; society wasn't a victim or survivor of crime... Fact that defendant acquitted of all underlying charges doesn't mean resisting arrest conviction is against manifest weight of evidence; charges are independent, says 8th District...

Civil.  9th District holds that malicious prosecution can't be asserted as counterclaim to the action claimed to be maliciously prosecuted, since element of claim is that prior proceeding was terminated in plaintiff's favor... 12th District reverses grant of summary judgment in workers comp case, says genuine dispute of fact as to whether claimant was in course and scope of employment under "traveling employee" rule... 9th District holds that parent moving to modify shared parenting plan to increase visitation must show "change of circumstances," not merely that change is in best interest of child...

This week's lesson in boat safety.  From the 6th District's decision in Hartman v. Cedar Fair, affirming summary judgment against a woman who fell out of the Sir-Tub-A-Dub's Tub water ride: 

When Hartman went to exit the ride immediately after her husband, Hartman perceived that the same employee who had assisted her family exit the ride was for some unknown reason unwilling to help her likewise exit the ride. She perceived that this same ride attendant had given her "dirty looks."  This perception was not rooted in any objective facts or evidence. Based upon this perception, Hartman elected to proceed exiting the ride in a manner which, given her deposition testimony, was clearly and openly hazardous.

Without asking for assistance from the nearby ride attendant or her husband, Hartman stood up in her tub-boat, picked up her granddaughter in one arm and her belongings in the other, and attempted to climb over a railing on the side of the tub. Appellant failed to clear the railing and tripped, sustaining injury.

Search

Recent Entries

  • May 25, 2017
    "Clarifying" post-release controls
    A look at the Supreme Court's decision in State v. Grimes
  • May 23, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Allied offenses, and two search cases
  • May 23, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Allied offenses, and two search cases
  • May 22, 2017
    Case Update
    Is SCOTUS looking for a forfeiture case? Plus, appellate decisions on expungement and restitution, plain error, and what a judge has to tell a defendant about sex registration
  • May 19, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th - Part II
    Decisions on lineups and prior calculation and design, and two out of eight (eight!) pro se defendants come up winners,
  • May 17, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th - Part I
    Taking a first look at some of the 8th District's decisions over the past two weeks
  • May 16, 2017
    Case Update
    Stock tips, Federal sentencing reform goes dormant, schoolbag searches, and the retroactivity of State v. Hand
  • May 8, 2017
    Case Update
    Death in Arkansas, a worrisome disciplinary decision, and appellate cases on speedy trial, arson registration, use of prior testimony, and the futility of post-conviction relief
  • May 2, 2017
    What's Up in the 8th
    Nothing but sex
  • May 1, 2017
    Case Update
    SCOTUS closes out oral argument for the Term, the Ohio Supreme Court has seven of them this week, and we report on a decision where you'll probably want to play Paul Simon's "Still Crazy After All These Years" in the background while you read about it