In the case of Saunders v. Greater Dayton Regional Transit Auth., 2023-Ohio-1514, an appellate court held that the case was properly dismissed with prejudice when the bus driver and the driver’s attorney left the courtroom without permission and failed to show up for the next trial day.
In this case, the bus driver argued that the bus driver’s attorney had a sister who was being transferred to the ICU and informed the bailiff and opposing counsel that the attorney would be unable to return to court due to the sister’s health issues. In response, the transit authority argued that the bus driver’s attorney never requested a continuance and had multiple warnings that failure to attend trial would result in a dismissal of the case. The appellate court agreed with the transit authority.
In support of its decision in favor of the transit authority, the appellate court explained that the warnings were sufficient to give notice of the consequences for a failure to appear. The appellate court further explained that the attorney failed to give many details about the situation with the sister, other than that the sister was in the ICU and did not specify a reason why it was imperative for the attorney to be in the ICU with the sister.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always-changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.