Burke v. Schaffner
683 N.E.2d 861 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of alternative liability, which shifts the burden of proof to defendants to disprove causation, applies only when the plaintiff proves that two or more actors committed tortious acts and all potentially liable actors are joined as defendants in the lawsuit.
Facts:
- A party was held for officers of the City of Columbus Division of Police, Eighth Precinct.
- Gary Burke was standing in a parking lot during the party when a pickup truck driven by Martin Malone suddenly accelerated.
- Kerri Schaffner was a passenger in the front seat of the truck, next to Malone.
- The accelerating truck pinned Gary Burke between it and a parked car, causing him serious injuries.
- The Burkes alleged that Schaffner negligently stepped on the truck's accelerator as she moved over to make room for other passengers.
- Martin Malone, the driver, denied that he was the one who stepped on the accelerator.
- Prior to suing Schaffner, the Burkes reached a settlement with Malone.
Procedural Posture:
- Gary and Tammy Burke filed a complaint against Kerri Schaffner in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas (a trial court).
- Schaffner filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court denied.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial.
- The plaintiffs' motion for a directed verdict was overruled by the trial court.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, Schaffner, expressly finding she was not negligent.
- The Burkes (appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth Appellate District (an intermediate appellate court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the doctrine of alternative liability apply when a plaintiff is injured by one of two potential actors, but alleges only a single tortious act was committed and has not joined both potentially responsible actors as defendants?
Opinions:
Majority - Tyack, J.
No, the doctrine of alternative liability does not apply under these circumstances. The doctrine requires a plaintiff to first prove that the conduct of two or more defendants was tortious. Here, the plaintiffs’ theory was that only one person—either Malone or Schaffner—committed a single negligent act of stepping on the accelerator, not that both acted tortiously. The court, citing Minnich v. Ashland Oil Co., emphasized that the doctrine is inapplicable where there is no proof that more than one defendant's conduct was tortious. Furthermore, the rationale for shifting the burden of proof is to prevent multiple tortfeasors from escaping liability, which requires that all potential tortfeasors be brought before the court as defendants. Since the plaintiffs settled with Malone and did not join him as a defendant, they failed to meet this prerequisite, making the burden-shifting rule of alternative liability inappropriate.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and reinforces the narrow scope of the alternative liability doctrine in Ohio. It establishes that the doctrine cannot be used as a tool for plaintiffs in cases of uncertain causation involving a single tortious act. The ruling prevents a plaintiff from suing only one of several potential tortfeasors and forcing that single defendant to disprove causation. Future litigants seeking to invoke alternative liability must be prepared to join all potentially responsible parties and present evidence that each defendant engaged in tortious conduct that created a risk of harm.
Unlock the full brief for Burke v. Schaffner