In the case of Kiser v. United Dairy Farmers, 2023-Ohio-2136, an appellate court held that summary judgment was inappropriate when the shopper, in a deposition, claimed that a store employee admitted to knowing there was ice in the parking lot.
In this case, the shopper argued that there was a legitimate question regarding whether the store knew of the hazardous condition because the shopper alleged in the deposition that the employee admitted knowledge of the ice. In response, the store argued that the only allegation that there was knowledge of a hazardous condition was in the shopper’s uncorroborated, self-serving testimony, which would not create an issue of fact. The appellate court agreed with the shopper.
In support of its decision in favor of the shopper, the appellate court explained that the deposition was filed with the court and was not objected to, which allowed it to be permissible evidence. The appellate court further explained that there are situations, such as this, where the unmoving party may be uniquely qualified to testify about a particular aspect of a case, so “self-serving” depositions should not be ignored when determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists.
To read this case, click here.
NOTE: This case was decided based on whether summary judgment was appropriate and the final outcome may be drastically different at trial.
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.