Lexplug logoLexplug

Gearhart v. Angeloff

Ohio Court of Appeals
244 N.E.2d 802, 46 Ohio Op. 2d 207, 17 Ohio App. 2d 143 (1969)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Punitive damages may be awarded for a defendant's negligence if that negligence is so gross as to demonstrate a reckless indifference to the rights and safety of other persons.


Facts:

  • Tommy Gearhart, age 20, was a patron at the Elbow Grille, a bar operated by partners Robert and Karl Angeloff.
  • A disturbance broke out when another person entered the bar and acted aggressively.
  • Karl Angeloff attempted to evict the troublemaker, resulting in a tussle where both men fell to the floor.
  • Robert Angeloff, the other partner, retrieved a revolver and fired it across the bar in the direction of the two men on the floor.
  • The bullet fired by Robert Angeloff grazed the arm of Tommy Gearhart, who was seated at the bar.
  • Gearhart suffered an injury that caused him to miss two to three weeks of work.

Procedural Posture:

  • Tommy Gearhart filed a lawsuit against Robert Angeloff and Karl Angeloff in an Ohio trial court, seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
  • The trial court awarded actual (compensatory) and punitive damages against Robert Angeloff, and compensatory damages against Karl Angeloff.
  • Robert Angeloff and Karl Angeloff, as appellants, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Ohio Court of Appeals, with Tommy Gearhart as the appellee.

Locked

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 gross negligence that shows a reckless indifference to the rights and safety of others justify an award of punitive damages?


Opinions:

Majority - Hunsicker, P. J.

Yes, gross negligence that shows a reckless indifference to the rights and safety of others justifies an award of punitive damages. While punitive damages are generally not recoverable for mere negligence, they are appropriate where a defendant's conduct is so outrageous or grossly negligent that it implies malice. The court reasoned that malice need not be actual, but can be implied from conduct that shows a reckless and conscious disregard for the consequences and the safety of others. Firing a revolver in a public bar, even if not aimed directly at the plaintiff, constitutes negligence so gross that it demonstrates a reckless indifference to the safety of all patrons, thereby supporting an award of punitive damages.



Analysis:

This decision clarifies the standard for punitive damages in Ohio negligence law, establishing that such damages are not limited to cases of intentional torts with actual malice. It broadens the scope of liability by allowing punitive awards for conduct that is extremely reckless, even without specific intent to harm the plaintiff. This precedent allows juries to punish and deter behavior that demonstrates a conscious disregard for public safety, such as discharging a firearm in a crowded space, and lowers the threshold for plaintiffs seeking punitive damages in cases of gross negligence.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Gearhart v. Angeloff (1969)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"