The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fourth District, Affirmed the Trial Court’s Summary Judgment in Favor of the Defendants

The plaintiff filed suit, seeking damages under various theories of liability after the defendant struck and injured the plaintiff, who was a pedestrian, with his motor vehicle. To be successful, the plaintiff must prove all four elements of the Assured Clear Distance Ahead (ACDA), which provides that a driver is negligent per se if he collides with an object that: “(1) is ahead of him in his path of travel, (2) is stationary or moving in the same direction as the driver, (3) did not suddenly appear in the driver’s path, and (4) is reasonably discernable.” The Court of Appeals found that no genuine issue of material fact was raised regarding the second and third prongs of the statute. Regarding the second prong, the court found that the plaintiff was not stationary or moving in the same direction of travel as the vehicle. Regarding the third prong, the court found that the plaintiff did appear suddenly in the driver’s path. Thus, the plaintiff could not prove all elements of the ACDA, and the trial court did not err in its grant of summary judgment. 

_{Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}